POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION

POLICY ISSUE
INFORMATION
August 17, 2001
SECY-01-0156
FOR:
The Commissioners
FROM:
William D. Travers
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
2001 ANNUAL UPDATE - STATUS OF DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM
PURPOSE:
To provide the Commission with an annual comprehensive overview of decommissioning
activities, including the decommissioning of Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP)
sites and other complex decommissioning sites, and commercial reactor decommissioning.
Although this report is a stand-alone document, it also provides a status update on the
decommissioning activities presented in SECY-00-0094.
SUMMARY:
This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the decommissioning program. Consistent
with Commission direction, the staff has provided a stand-alone document that presents a
combined overview of the decommissioning activities within the Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), and the Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). Using SECY-00-0094 as a baseline, progress made in
each of the program areas during the past year is described in this paper.
CONTACT:
John T. Buckley, NMSS
(301) 415-6607
The Commissioners
-2-
BACKGROUND:
The Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) (M990729B) dated August
26, 1999, requesting that the staff provide: (1) the status of the remaining active SDMP sites,
including plans and schedules for each site; and (2) a summary report on all sites currently in
the SDMP. In addition, SRM M990317C, dated June 23, 1999, directed the staff to provide a
single coordinated annual report on all decommissioning activities instead of annual reports
from separate offices. On April 25, 2000, the staff provided the Commission with SECY-000094, which was the first comprehensive, combined overview of the decommissioning activities
within NMSS and NRR. This paper provides a similar comprehensive overview, and in addition,
highlights the progress made in the decommissioning program during the past year.
The Commission has expressed interest in continuing the annual reporting process embodied
in SECY-00-0094, highlighting significant accomplishments and changes. Further, the
Commission expressed its desire to make the annual report a comprehensive, stand-alone,
report, available for dissemination to all parties interested in the decommissioning program.
DISCUSSION:
1. Summary of Decommissioning Program
The function of the decommissioning program is to regulate the decontamination and
decommissioning of materials and fuel cycle facilities, and power and non-power reactors, with
the ultimate goal of license termination. A broad spectrum of activities associated with these
program functions is discussed in Attachment 1. Principal program areas pertaining to
licensing casework and the status of sites undergoing decommissioning, are discussed below.
Approximately 300 materials licenses are terminated each year. Most of these license
terminations are routine, and the sites require little, if any, remediation to meet the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) unrestricted release criteria. The decommissioning program
is responsible for the termination of licenses that are not routine because the sites require more
complex decommissioning activities. Currently, there are 19 nuclear power reactors
undergoing routine decommissioning, and 27 materials facilities undergoing non-routine
decommissioning. Details on these sites are presented in Section 2, below.
NMSS, NRR, and RES have responsibility for decommissioning program activities. NRR has
project management responsibility for all stages of non-power reactor decommissioning and
oversight of the initial stages of power reactor decommissioning; NMSS regulates the
decommissioning of nuclear material facilities and has oversight of power reactors once the
spent fuel is no longer stored in the spent fuel pool; and RES provides technical support
through the development of guidance and dose-modeling techniques. The staff has taken
steps to ensure that integration of decommissioning activities within the Agency occurs. First,
the Agency Operating Plan is being used to track and manage major decommissioning tasks.
NMSS and RES mutually track decommissioning activities in the Agency Operating Plan.
Second, the Decommissioning Management Board (hereafter the Board) meets bi-weekly to
provide management input on decommissioning activities and issues. The Board, composed of
managers from NMSS, RES, NRR, and the Regions, along with Office of the General Counsel
The Commissioners
-3-
(OGC), serves as an effective mechanism for integrating inter-Office and regional program
activities and issue resolution. The Decommissioning Management Board was cited as one
mechanism by which staff could enhance intra-agency communication and ensure that NRC’s
regulatory processes are integrated (OIG Management Challenge 5 & 6).
2. Decommissioning Activities
a. SDMP and Other Complex Site Decommissioning
NMSS initially presented the SDMP to the Commission in SECY-90-121, dated March 29, 1990.
The SDMP was created in response to SRMs dated August 22, 1989, and January 31, 1990,
which directed the staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for achieving closure of
decommissioning issues in a timely manner, and to develop a list of contaminated sites, in
order of cleanup priority. Attachment 2 provides the criteria for placing a site on
the SDMP.
The License Termination Rule (LTR) (10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E) authorizes two different sets
of cleanup criteria--the SDMP Action Plan criteria, and dose-based criteria. Under the
provisions of 10 CFR 20.1401(b), any licensee that submitted its Decommissioning Plan (DP)
before August 20, 1998, and received NRC approval of that DP before August 20, 1999, could
use the SDMP Action Plan criteria for site remediation. In the SRM on SECY-99-195, the
Commission granted an extension of the DP approval deadline for 12 sites, to August 20, 2000.
In September 2000, the staff notified the Commission that all 12 DPs were approved by the
deadline. All other sites must use the dose-based criteria of the LTR. In addition, Agreement
States were expected to adopt equivalent dose criteria by September 20, 2000.
There are currently 24 SDMP sites and three additional complex decommissioning sites
undergoing decommissioning (see Attachment 3). Twenty-two sites have been removed from
the SDMP after successful remediation (see Attachment 4). In addition, 11 sites have been
removed from the SDMP by transfer to an Agreement State or the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) (see Attachment 5). NRC is currently committed to removing one site
from the SDMP in fiscal year 2001 (FY2001) and FY2002. Historically, the goal has been to
remove three sites from the SDMP each year. However, since the remaining sites are rather
complex decommissioning cases and dose modeling required under the LTR places more
demands on licensees; in FY2001 the goal was reduced to one site annually.
In the FY2000 Operating Plan, three sites -- Pesses Co. (METCOA); Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing (3M); and Watertown Mall -- were scheduled for removal from the SDMP.
Pesses Co. (METCOA) was removed from the SDMP in September 1999. 3M and Watertown
Mall were removed from the SDMP in September 2000. SECY-00-0172, which authorized the
staff to remove 3M from the SDMP, requested that the staff include a thorough discussion of
the technical basis for recommending removal of SDMP sites in the future. Future staff
recommendations will include summaries of the licensees’ dose assessments and the staff’s
confirmatory dose assessments. In SECY-00-0173, the Commission approved removal of the
Watertown Mall site from the SDMP. The Commission also requested that the staff inform it of
ongoing discussions regarding whether the Watertown GSA property should be added to the
existing Watertown Mall license. To date, the staff has not licensed the Watertown GSA site
The Commissioners
-4-
and does not plan to pursue licensing, if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can complete
remediation in accordance with its proposed schedule.
In addition to regulating the cleanup of SDMP and complex decommissioning sites, the
decommissioning program is responsible for overseeing the cleanup of contaminated sites
identified under the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Terminated License Review
Project. Since release of SECY-00-0094, the staff has added one additional site -- Department
of Army (Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, PA) to the list of contaminated sites, because the
Army is not able to remediate the site in a timely manner. As a result of the ORNL review, and
subsequent follow-up by the Regions, 39 formerly licensed sites were found to have residual
contamination levels, exceeding NRC’s criteria for unrestricted release, that could require
additional staff attention to ensure timely remediation (see Attachment 6). Eighteen sites have
been re-released after successful remediation, and 11 have been closed by transfer to
Agreement States or a Federal entity. One site, Atlantic Research Corporation, was rereleased in 2000. Ten sites remain open pending remediation. Two of the formerly licensed
sites were added to the SDMP because these sites will require non-routine decommissioning
activities. The remaining sites are considered to be non-complex and, therefore, do not warrant
placement on the SDMP at this time. However, it is possible that these sites may be added to
the SDMP if site conditions change. The staff continues to work toward review of all remaining
ORNL-identified sites (43 sites), with each Region budgeted at 0.1 full-time equivalents (FTEs),
in FY2001 for this purpose. The Regions expect to complete all reviews by the end of FY2001.
In calendar year 2000, the Division of Waste Management (DWM) staff continued
implementation of the rebaselining initiative that began in September 1999. The objective of
rebaselining is to develop and implement a comprehensive integrated plan for successfully
bringing SDMP and complex decommissioning sites to closure. Site status summaries are
maintained, and updated monthly, for each SDMP and complex decommissioning site (see
Attachment 7). These summaries describe the status of each site and identify the technical and
regulatory issues impacting removal of the site from the SDMP or completion of
decommissioning. The staff also developed and maintains Gantt charts for each site, which are
updated quarterly, to guide the management of decommissioning activities. The Gantt charts
identify all major decommissioning activities and schedules for completion. For those licensees
that have submitted a DP, the schedules are based on the staff’s assessment of the complexity
of the DP review. For those licensees that have not submitted a DP, the schedules are based
on other information available to the staff and the decommissioning approach anticipated by the
staff. An example of a site Gantt chart is presented in Attachment 8.
As part of the rebaselining process, the staff is also implementing streamlining objectives such
as: (a) assuming a more proactive role in interacting with licensees undergoing
decommissioning; (b) expanding the acceptance review process, to include a limited technical
review, to reduce the need for additional rounds of questions; (c) ensuring that institutional
controls and financial assurance requirements are adequate before a technical review of the
DP; (d) implementing other procedures to reduce the number of requests for additional
information; (e) conducting in-process/side-by-side confirmatory surveys; and (f) relying more
heavily on licensees’ quality assurance programs, rather than conducting large-scale
confirmatory surveys. Furthermore, the staff is incorporating strategies to achieve the
performance goals identified as part of the Agency’s strategic planning process and Strategic
Plan for FY2000 - 2005. Examples of strategies being incorporated include: focusing on
The Commissioners
-5-
resolving key issues such as institutional control for restricted release; partial site release;
conducting stakeholder workshops to seek licensee, industry, and public input; updating,
consolidating and risk informing/performance orienting decommissioning guidance; and working
with industry to identify and resolve technical and policy issue associated with
decommissioning; and developing a stakeholder database and website.
A table summarizing the decommissioning schedule for all SDMP and complex
decommissioning sites is provided in Attachment 9. The schedules presented may be
influenced by the quality and timeliness of licensee submittals and modifications in the
licensee’s remediation schedule. However, the staff’s streamlining efforts may mitigate these
schedule impacts somewhat. From the table, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) five
of 27 SDMP and complex decommissioning sites have not yet submitted DPs (the last DP
should be submitted in 2002); (2) NRC has approved 14 of 22 DPs submitted to date [the last
DP (Fansteel, Inc.) should be approved by 2009]; and (3) the last site (Fansteel) should be
removed from the SDMP by 2020. Fansteel has an extremely protracted schedule because its
current license allows continuation of reprocessing waste residue for 10 -12 more years. Each
site schedule was initially developed independently by the staff and presented in SECY-000094, without formal licensee input, using the standard assumptions presented in Attachment
10 and the site-specific assumptions stated in the site summaries. During the past year, the
staff discussed these schedules with licensees to factor in licensee input. Licensee input has
resulted in many modifications to the decommissioning schedules presented in SECY-00-0094.
Attachment 9 contains the site decommissioning schedules for sites located in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, even though Pennsylvania is scheduled to become an
Agreement State by FY2004. In preparing the FY2002 - FY2004 budget, it was assumed that
nine current SDMP sites will have their licenses terminated after successful remediation or be
transferred to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by the end of FY2003. Transferring sites to
Agreement States raises some sensitive issues, as discussed in SECY-97-188, SECY-98-011,
and SECY-98-273.
b. Reactor Decommissioning
NMSS and NRR signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on March 10, 1995, which
delineates the responsibilities for power reactor decommissioning between NRR and NMSS. In
accordance with the MOU, NRR, along with the appropriate Region, will be responsible for
project management, inspection, and oversight for a power reactor undergoing
decommissioning, until the spent fuel is permanently removed from the spent fuel pool. Once
the spent fuel is permanently removed from the spent fuel pool, the facility is transferred to
NMSS, and NMSS assumes responsibility for project management, and, along with the
appropriate Region, inspection oversight. However, a facility may submit a License Termination
Plan (LTP) before the spent fuel is permanently removed from the spent fuel pool. In this case,
NRR retains project management oversight while NMSS is responsible for reviewing the LTP,
and preparing the safety evaluation report, the environmental assessment, and the license
termination order and amendment. NMSS is also responsible for confirmatory surveys and
license termination activities, including assurance that appropriate site release criteria have
been met.
The Commissioners
-6-
NRR currently has regulatory project management responsibility for 17 power reactors. Plant
status summaries for reactors under NRR project management are provided in Attachment 11.
Regulatory project management responsibility for two reactors (Fermi 1 and Peach Bottom
Unit 1) has been transferred from NRR to NMSS. Plant status summaries for Fermi 1 and
Peach Bottom Unit 1 are provided in Attachment 12. NMSS is currently reviewing the LTPs for
Maine Yankee, Saxton, and Connecticut Yankee. A license amendment approving the Trojan
LTP was issued in February 2001. The staff has developed a generic schedule for reviewing
LTPs (see Attachment 13). Attachment 14 provides a schedule for reactor
decommissioning activities.
In February 2001, the responsibility for reactor decommissioning rulemaking and generic
activities was transferred from NRR’s Division of Licensing and Project Management (DLPM) to
the Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs (DRIP). Project management responsibilities
for 15 of the 17 power reactors under NRR oversight remained with DLPM. Decommissioning
project management of two early demonstration reactors, GE VBWR and Saxton, will remain
with the Non-Power Reactor Section in DRIP. The purpose of the February 2001
reorganization was to align rulemaking and generic activities in the organization (DRIP)
responsible for those activities within NRR.
The Commission issued SRM (M990317C) dated June 23, 1999, requesting that the staff:
(1) consider the viability of an integrated, risk-informed reactor decommissioning rule versus
individual rulemakings, to address insurance, emergency preparedness, safeguards, backfit,
fitness-for-duty, and staffing -- if viable, the staff should outline its plans for pursuing such a
rule; and (2) provide a single coordinated annual report on all decommissioning activities.
SECY-99-168, dated June 30, 1999, recommended approval of an integrated rulemaking
approach and outlined plans for such a rulemaking. Accordingly, the staff subsumed previous
rulemaking activities in the areas of emergency planning, insurance, safeguards, operator
staffing, and backfit into one integrated rulemaking. The staffs plan for proceeding with the
integrated rulemaking is before the Commission at this time.
As of February 11, 2001, NRR divided the responsibility for the decommissioning of power
reactors between two main groups, Division of Licensing Project Management (DLPM), and
Division of Regulatory Improvement Program (DRIP). This division allows the rulemaking for
decommissioning to be consolidated with all other NRR rulemaking responsibilities in DRIP and
DLPM project managers to continue to process licensing actions.
3. Guidance and Rulemaking Activities
In an SRM dated July 8, 1998, the Commission directed the staff to prepare various guidance
documents in support of the “Final Rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination.” As a
result, the staff has completed, and is developing several guidance documents that will help
licensees prepare decommissioning documents, and provide the staff with a uniform approach
for reviewing licensee submittals. The staff published NUREG-1727, “NMSS Decommissioning
Standard Review Plan,” (SRP) in September 2000. The staff conducted several workshops
with stakeholders to obtain input on the development of the SRP. A listing of the major
decommissioning guidance documents, completed and under development, is presented in
Attachment 15.
The Commissioners
-7-
A Commission meeting was conducted on March 17, 1999, regarding decommissioning of
power reactors. At that time, the Commission directed the staff to consider developing a
risk-informed approach to decommissioning regulations. The staff committed to perform a
detailed technical study on decommissioning plant spent fuel pool accident risk. The spent fuel
pool risk study was completed and publicly issued on January 17, 2001. The staff developed a
policy options paper for the Commission -- SECY-01-0100, dated June 4, 2001, entitled, “Policy
Issues Related to Safeguards, Insurance, and Emergency Preparedness Regulations at
Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Storing Fuel in Spent Fuel Pools.”
The staff prepared a rulemaking plan to standardize the process for allowing the partial site
release of a reactor facility or site before approval of the LTP. The plan was sent to the
Commission in SECY-00-0023, dated February 2, 2000. The Commission approved the
rulemaking plan on April 26, 2000. The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste was briefed on
the proposed rule in March 2001, and the proposed rule package was sent to the Commission
on May 9, 2001. The staff will go forward and issue the proposed rule after receiving the SRM.
In addition, as discussed in Attachment 1, the staff is reexamining its approach for control of
solid materials.
In SRMs dated July 20, 2000, and September 5, 2000, the Commission directed the staff to
develop a Rulemaking Plan to address the entombment option for power reactors. On June 1,
2001, the staff forwarded SECY-01-099, “Rulemaking Plan and Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking: Entombment for Power Reactors,” which contained three options for proceeding.
The staff has undertaken an effort to update the 1988 Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on Decommissioning (NUREG-0586) for power reactors. The current schedule calls for
issuance of a draft update, for comment, in fall 2001. The staff has worked closely with EPA,
industry, and interested members of the public in defining the scope of the draft EIS.
RESOURCES:
The total decommissioning program staff budget, for FY2001 and FY2002, is 82 FTEs and 75
FTEs, respectively. These resource figures include: licensing casework directly related to
SDMP and other complex decommissioning sites; inspections; Region follow-up on formerly
terminated license sites; project management and technical support for decommissioning power
reactors; development of rules and guidance; and environmental impact statements and
assessments. These figures do not include overhead associated with the decommissioning
program. Resource breakdown for staff (in FTEs), and contractor support (in thousands of
dollars), as reflected in the FY2001 budget to Congress, by Office, follows:
The Commissioners
Staff
-8-
FY01
Contractor
Staff
FY02
Contractor
TOTAL
Staff Contractor
NMSS
33
3450
32
4470
65
7920
NRR
18
500
13
300
31
800
RES
11
2117
11
2122
22
4239
OGC
2
2
4
Regions
18
17
35
TOTAL
82
6067
75
6892
157
12,959
COORDINATION:
OGC has reviewed this paper and has no legal objections. The Office of the Chief Financial
Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objections.
/RA/
William D. Travers
Executive Director
for Operations
ATTACHMENTS:
1. “Decommissioning Program Activities”
2. “Criteria for Placing Site on the SDMP”
3. “Current SDMP and Complex Decommissioning Sites”
4. “Sites Removed from the SDMP after Successful Remediation”
5. “Sites Removed from the SDMP by Transfer to Agreement States or EPA”
6. “Contaminated Formerly Licensed Sites”
7. “Site Status Summaries for SDMP and Complex Decommissioning Sites”
8. Example of a Site Gantt Chart
9. “Schedule for Termination of SDMP and Complex Decommissioning Sites”
10. “Assumptions Used to Develop SDMP and Complex Decommissioning Site Gantt Charts”
11. “Status Summaries for Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning”
12. “Plant Status Summaries for Fermi Unit 1 and Peach Bottom Unit 1"
13. “Generic LTP Review Schedule”
14. “Schedule for Reactor Decommissioning Activities”
15. “Major Decommissioning Guidance Documents”
DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Attachment 1
DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
The fiscal year (FY) 2001 Operating Plan divides the decommissioning program activities into
two main areas: (1) Materials Decommissioning; and (2) Reactor Decommissioning. The
activities associated with each program area are provided below. Since development of
guidance and regulations is an activity common to both program areas, it will be discussed in
terms of the overall program.
1.0 DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDANCE AND REGULATIONS
On July 21, 1997, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published the final rule on
“Radiological Criteria for License Termination” (the License Termination Rule) as Subpart E to
10 CFR Part 20. NRC regulations require that materials licensees submit decommissioning
plans (DPs), to support the decommissioning of their facility, if it is required by license
condition, or if the procedures and activities necessary to carry out the decommissioning have
not been approved by NRC and these procedures could increase the potential health and safety
impacts on the workers or the public. NRC regulations also require that reactor licensees
submit Post-shutdown Decommissioning Activities Reports (PSDARs) and License Termination
Plans (LTPs) to support the decommissioning of nuclear power facilities. In September 2000,
the NRC staff published NUREG-1727, “NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review Plan” to aid
the staff in reviewing and evaluating plans and information submitted by licensees to support
the decommissioning of nuclear facilities.
In SRMs dated July 20, 2000, and September 5, 2000, the Commission directed the staff to
develop a Rulemaking Plan to address the entombment option for power reactors. On June 1,
2001, the staff forwarded SECY-01-0099, “Rulemaking Plan and Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking: Entombment for Power Reactors” which contained three options for proceeding
with entombment. The first option is to continue with the current approach and handle
entombment requests on a case-by-case basis. The second option is to conduct rulemaking to
add flexibility to 10 CFR 50.82 to amend the 60-year time frame for completion of
decommissioning and to clarify the use of engineered barriers for reactor entombments. The
third option is to conduct rulemaking to establish performance objectives and licensing
requirements for entombment.
On March 23, 2000, the staff provided the Commission with a paper (SECY-00-070) which
provided recommendations on issues concerning the control of solid materials at licensed
facilities. In an SRM, dated August 18, 2000, the Commission decided to defer a final decision
on whether to proceed with rulemaking and directed the staff to proceed with a National
Academies (NAS) study on possible alternatives for control of solid materials, and to continue
the development of a technical information base to support a Commission policy decision in this
area. The staff expects to have the NAS report in early 2002 and, as also directed by the SRM,
will provide its recommendations on how best to proceed to the Commission approximately
three months after completion of the NAS study.
The staff prepared a rulemaking plan to standardize the process for allowing the partial site
release of a reactor facility or site prior to approval of the LTP. The plan was approved by the
Commission on April 26, 2000. The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) was
briefed on the proposed rule in March 2001, and the proposed rule package was sent to the
Page 1 of 8
Commission on May 9, 2001. The staff will go forward and issue the proposed rule after
receiving the SRM.
The staff published final Regulatory Guide 1.191, “Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power
Plants During Decommissioning and Permanent Shutdown,” in May 2001. The Regulatory
Guide describes methods acceptable to the staff for complying with NRC’s regulations
regarding fire protection programs for power reactors that have permanently ceased operations.
The staff also published SECY-01-099, “Rulemaking Plan and Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking: Entombment for Power Reactors,” on June 1, 2001. In addition, the staff
continues to support the development of the rulemaking for the recycling/reuse of radioactively
contaminated materials. A complete listing of the guidance developed is presented in
Attachment 15.
The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) provides data and models to NMSS to
support assessments of public exposure to environmental releases of radioactive material from
site decommissioning. Since SECY-0094 was published, RES provided DWM with: (1) data on
degradation of archeological slags that will be used as the basis for assessing long-term
performance of slags as a source of radioactive contamination; (2) documentation of
unsaturated zone-monitoring strategies for use in review of monitoring proposals for licensing
actions concerning decommissioning and waste disposal facilities in unsaturated media; (3) a
technical basis to support selection of site-specific parameter values for estimating flux and
transport in dose-assessment codes; (4) a probabilistic version of RESRAD; (5) a final user’s
guide on probabilistic version of D and D software; (6) a draft technical report on test
application of methodology for selecting and testing conceptual models with respect to a
specific site; and (7) verification and validation testing of 4SIGHT (computer code for predicting
performance of barriers). Major RES activities to be completed in 2001 include: (1) a draft
report on the uncertainty methodology for hydrologic parameter uncertainties; (2) publish
NUREG/CR on radionuclide solubilities that will be used in assessments at slag sites; and (3)
publish NUREG/CR on radionuclide solubilities that will be used in assessments of soil.
2.0 REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING
Reactor decommissioning activities include: (1) Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards (NMSS) project management and technical review responsibility for
decommissioning of two power reactors; (2) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project
management and licensing oversight for 17 decommissioning reactor facilities; (3) conducting
of core inspections; (4) project management for all licensed non-power reactors; (5) supporting
development of rulemaking on entombment; (6) development of rulemaking and guidance on
partial site release; and development of guidance on changing LTPs without requiring a license
amendment.
!
NMSS has project management and technical review responsibility for the Fermi 1 and
Peach Bottom Unit 1 power reactors. Status summaries for these reactors are
contained in Attachment 11. In addition, NMSS is currently reviewing LTPs for Maine
Yankee, Connecticut Yankee, and Saxton. NRC approved the LTP for Trojan on
February 12, 2001.
Page 2 of 8
!
NRR has project management and licensing oversight for 17 power reactors that have
either submitted DPs (or equivalent) or PSDARs (see Attachments 11 and 14).
3.0 MATERIALS AND FUEL CYCLE DECOMMISSIONING
Material and Fuel Cycle Decommissioning activities include: (1) regulatory oversight of Site
Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) sites and other complex decommissioning sites;
(2) implementing the Commission’s direction under DSI-9 by conducting a pilot study for
performing decommissioning without the submittal of a DP; (3) undertaking license termination
file reviews; (4) undertaking financial assurance reviews; (5) providing West Valley oversight;
(6) decommissioning guidance consolidation; (7) examination of issues and funding options to
facilitate remediation of sites in non-agreement states including working with the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) to facilitate the long-term control of sites with long-lived
radionuclides; (8) interacting with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS); (9) inspecting SDMP and
other complex decommissioning sites; (10) maintaining the Computerized Risk Assessment
and Data Analysis Lab (CRADAL); (11) evaluating Agreement State implementation of the LTR;
and (12) public outreach.
!
Activities associated with the SDMP and complex site decommissioning program
include: (1) review of site characterization plans; (2) review and approval of DPs; (3)
implement streamlined licensing approach by conducting pre-decommissioning plan
development meetings with licensees; (4) review of licensee final status survey reports
and conduct of confirmatory surveys; and (5) preparation of environmental assessments
(EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs). Since publication of SECY-000094, the staff has approved 7 DPs, conducted 4 pre-DP development meetings with
licensees, and prepared 7 EAs. When SECY-00-0094 was published, the staff had
indications that 12 SDMP and other complex decommissioning sites would request
restricted release resulting in the preparation of 12 EISs. During the past year, the staff
has been informed that three of these sites now intend to pursue unrestricted release.
The staff believes that difficulties associated with securing legally enforceable
institutional controls may cause other licensees to change from restricted to unrestricted
release options. Sequoyah Fuels Corporation (SFC) is a good example of a site which
is having difficulty securing legally enforceable institutional controls.
SFC submitted a decommissioning plan requesting decommissioning in accordance with
the restricted release provision of 10 CFR 20.1403. SFC has not contracted with a
competent party to provide the required institutional controls. Staff is currently exploring
if DOE might take the site under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) Section 151(b),
that authorizes, but does not compel, DOE to take control of such sites. DOE and NRC
are pursuing a Memorandum of Understanding by which sites would be selected for
DOE control under its long-term stewardship program. In January, 2001, SFC proposed
that its site be reclassified as a byproduct material facility because it believes
approximately 80% of the waste could meet the definition in the Atomic Energy Act
Section 11(e)(2). The bases for this position are that the front end of the SFC process
is the same as that at a mill (solvent extraction to purify uranium ore), and “milling” is a
function not a location. Such a reclassification would mandate DOE control of the site
after decommissioning under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
Page 3 of 8
The NRC staff and Office of General Counsel has not reached a resolution of this issue.
DOE has reviewed the SFC submittal, and informed NRC, via letter, that DOE “has no
formal opinion on this matter” and will abide by any NRC decision. Staff is currently
evaluating SFC’s request and will communicate with the Commission on a course of
action.
!
The staff continues to implement the Commission’s direction under DSI-9. Three
facilities (Westinghouse Cheswick Pump Repair Facility, Viacom/CBS Forest Hill
Laboratory, Phillips Petroleum Radiation Laboratory) are taking part in the pilot study to
perform decommissioning without the submittal of a DP. All three facilities have now
completed decommissioning. On March 7, 2001, NRC authorized release of the
Westinghouse Pump Repair Facility for unrestricted use. Region 1 has approved final
site survey reports for the Viacom/CBS Forest Hill Laboratory and awaits the
amendment request to release the site for unrestricted use. Region IV transferred the
license docket for Phillips Petroleum Radiation Laboratory to the State of Oklahoma in
September 2000, after the decommissioning was completed, but before receiving the
license amendment requesting release of the laboratory for unrestricted use. Staff is
currently finalizing the evaluation of the Pilot Program.
!
In 1990, the NRC decided to undertake a review of terminated materials licenses to
assure that facilities were properly decontaminated and posed no threat to public health
and safety. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) was contracted to review all
materials licenses terminated by the NRC or its predecessor agencies, from the
inception of materials regulation, to: (1) identify sites with potential for meaningful
residual contamination, based on information in the license documentation; and (2) to
identify sealed sources with incomplete or no accounting that could represent a public
hazard. ORNL identified approximately 675 loose material licenses and 564 sealed
source licenses that required further review by the Regions. Regional staff reviewed
ORNL identified sites in accordance with Temporary Instruction 2800/026, “Follow-up
Inspection of Formerly Licensed Sites Identified as Potentially Contaminated,” dated
April 15, 1998. Regional staff continue to review terminated license files and conduct
follow-up, as appropriate, within existing resources. The following table, revised May
30, 2001, shows the number of formerly licensed sites yet to be reviewed by the
Regions. The Regions are scheduled to complete all remaining reviews by
September 2001.
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Total
Number of loose material
sites pending site review
(non-Agreement State
sites)
0
4
0
6
10
Number of sealed source
sites pending review (nonAgreement State sites)
0
7
0
8
15
Total
0
11
0
14
Page 4 of 8
25
!
Staff routinely reviews financial assurance submittals for materials and fuel facilities, and
maintains a financial instrument security program. Between 40 and 60 financial
assurance submittals are reviewed each year.
!
NRC's decommissioning responsibilities at the West Valley Demonstration Project
(WVDP) and West Valley site are specified under the WVDP Act and 10 CFR 20,
respectively. Responsibilities under the WVDP Act include: prescribing
decontamination and decommissioning criteria; reviewing draft portions of the EIS for
decontamination and decommissioning and closure of the site; reviewing safety analysis
reports; and performing periodic onsite monitoring of project activities and records, to
assure radiological health and safety. The Commission’s draft policy statement
regarding decommissioning criteria for the WVDP and West Valley site was issued in
December 1999 for public comment. Staff received public comments from December
1999 through April 2000. Considering the public comments, staff prepared a final draft
policy statement which was submitted to the Commission for review in December 2000.
The draft policy statement specified NRC’s License Termination Rule as the
decommissioning criteria. NRC's final decommissioning criteria will be a significant
component of the EIS for decommissioning and closure of the site. The Commission is
considering approaches to finalize the policy statement.
!
The staff has initiated a decommissioning guidance consolidation project. The project
involves review and consolidation of all existing NMSS decommissioning guidance
documents, decommissioning technical assistance requests, decommissioning licensing
conditions, and all decommissioning generic communications issued over the past
several years. The project will be conducted using the Business Process Reengineering (BPR) techniques. The BPR approach will be used to both develop the
product, and manage the review and concurrence process, using self-managed teams
consisting of NRC headquarters and regional resources, with possible Agreement State
participation. The goal is to produce consolidated NMSS decommissioning guidance
that allows the NRC staff to evaluate information submitted by licensees in a timely,
efficient, and consistent manner that protects public health and safety. The end result
will be a streamlined multi-volume NUREG grouped into decommissioning functional
categories. Further ease of use will be realized by making this a web-based document.
The project team began developing the first NUREG volume in June 2001, and the goal
is to complete drafts of the NUREG volumes by the end of FY2002. The overall project
is scheduled to be completed by the end of FY2003. The updated, consolidated
guidance will be provided to all users, both NRC and licensee in hard-copy and/or
electronic media. Since each group will have access to the same guidance, the
expected results are more complete license documents that will expedite the approval
process for both applicants and reviewers. As a result, it is expected that this project
will serve to improve the overall decommissioning process.
!
In August 2000 the staff provided the Commission with an analysis of issues to facilitate
remediation of decommissioning sites in non-Agreement States. The analysis
considered both formerly licensed sites and currently licensed sites where future funding
of decommissioning might be difficult. The staff also provided options to address these
difficulties, and the Commission directed the staff to pursue some of the
recommended options.
Page 5 of 8
One of the principle options approved by the Commission was for the staff to pursue an
agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to provide long-term control, for a
limited number of SDMP and complex sites using the the restricted release option under
Part 20, as authorized under section 151(b) of NWPA. NRC and DOE management
signed an Agreement in Principle in March 2001 to seek development of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would define the criteria and process that
each agency would use to make determinations regarding the potential transfer of a site
consistent with section 151(b) of NWPA. The staff is currently working with the DOE
staff to develop the MOU and will report progress to the Commission by October 2001.
The Commission also tentatively approved the staff’s recommendation to request
authorization and appropriations for State-directed remediation at formerly licensed sites
in non-Agreement States where there is insufficient funding available. The Commission
requested the staff to better define the number of sites, potential costs for remediation,
and willingness of the States to direct remediation with appropriated funds. Staff from
both Headquarters and the Regions are working on a response to be provided to the
Commission in April 2002, after reviews of remaining terminated license sites are
completed. Similarly, the Commission also requested the staff to provide further
information about currently licensed sites undergoing decommissioning that might have
insufficient funds to decommission the facility. The staff is identifying potential sites that
might have insufficient funds, estimating remediation costs for both restricted and
unrestricted release, and determining the willingness of States or another Federal
agency to direct remediation. The staff will provide this information to the Commission
in April 2002. Finally, the staff is preparing a response to the Commission’s request to
further develop the option of increasing financial assurance requirements.
!
The staff continues to work with the EPA and ISCORS to resolve issues related to the
regulation of radionuclides. This interaction is necessary to avoid unnecessary
duplication of regulatory requirements, including risk harmonization, mixed waste,
recycle, decommissioning/cleanup, and sewer reconcentration.
!
Staff continues utilizing the Integrated Licensing and Inspection Plan (ILIP) developed in
1998. The primary objective of the ILIP for decommissioning projects is to ensure that
appropriate coordination, planning, documentation, and scheduling of key
decommissioning inspection and licensing activities take place. The ILIP is used to
track and coordinate pending licensing actions and inspections. The ILIP helps keep
management and staff focused on decommissioning activities that in many cases are
unique events. Because many decommissioning activities are unique events, and occur
on schedules established by licensees/responsible parties, it is important for the NRC
staff (project managers and inspectors) to be aware of pending decommissioning
activities and licensee schedules, to effectively plan and conduct inspections.
!
CRADAL provides the staff with a high-performance computing capability that includes a
platform to conduct intensive numerical calculations and parallel computing in support of
licensing activities.
!
In December 2000, NRC issued a request for technical information to all Agreement
States regarding their status of the LTR. Of the 32 Agreement States, 16 States have
Page 6 of 8
adopted dose criteria equivalent to the LTR, two States have adopted criteria more
restrictive than the LTR, and 14 have yet to adopt dose criteria. All Agreement States
were expected to adopt dose criteria equivalent to, or more restrictive than, the LTR by
September 20, 2000. Implementation of decommissioning criteria by the Agreement
States, is an agenda item for the annual Organization of Agreement States Meeting, in
October 2001.
!
Decommissioning staff interacts with the public in several ways including Public
Meetings at individual sites, workshops, and participation in societal and private
symposia.
On November 1, 2000, the DWM staff held a meeting at NRC Headquarters to gather
input on the results of NRC's Decommissioning Pilot Program. Representatives from
two participating pilot program licensees: Westinghouse Government Services and
Viacom/CBS; the Nuclear Energy Institute; ABB Prospects, Inc.; several consultants; the
public; and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection participated in the
meeting. The Pilot Program was initiated in 1998, in response to a Staff Requirements
Memorandum on COMSECY-96-058 - Decommissioning Non-reactor Facilities (DSI 9),
to test a performance-based decommissioning review process. The pilot process
focused on residual contamination goals and allowed participants to decommission
without obtaining an approved decommissioning plan. Westinghouse and Viacom
participated in the pilot program, completed decommissioning work by the summer of
2000, and shared “lessons learned” at the meeting. Westinghouse and Viacom
indicated that their experiences in the pilot program were positive, and that the revised
process resulted in schedule and cost savings.
On November 8 and 9, 2000, DWM staff sponsored a workshop on decommissioning.
The purpose of the workshop was to provide a forum for industry and non-industry
stakeholders to discuss, with NRC staff, NRC’s processes and procedures for
managing the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, as well as current issues facing the
staff, and licensees, as they implement NRC’s requirements at 10 CFR Part 20,
Subpart E (the License Termination Rule). To ensure that both industry and
non-industry stakeholders were represented at the workshop, staff invited
representatives from the nuclear industry, various public interest groups, and other
Federal and State agencies with responsibilities for regulating the use of radioactive
material, to participate in the roundtable discussions. Approximately 130 individuals
representing the nuclear industry, citizen’s organizations and the public, Federal and
State regulatory agencies, and the media attended the workshop. The staff believes
that there are not any outstanding issues that require immediate Commission attention,
although the staff and Commission may wish to consider the issues raised as plans for
future activities to implement the decommissioning program are developed.
In March 2001, the staff completed development of a Communication Plan for
Regulation of Decommissioning. The goals of NRC’s decommissioning communications
activities are: to increase public confidence in NRC’s commitment and ability to carry out
licensing and regulatory responsibilities for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities;
and to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and realism of analyses supporting license
termination decisions. The Plan provides guidance for developing individual
Page 7 of 8
Communication Plans for specific activities associated with the regulation of radiological
decommissioning. These include, but are not limited to, the decommissioning of
commercial nuclear power reactors, fuel cycle and materials licensees, and sites on the
SDMP. The Plan discusses several topics pertinent to developing site specific
communication plans including: cross cutting considerations; identification of
stakeholders; application of communications tools and techniques; and costs associated
with the Sequoyah Fuels public outreach meeting. Site-specific communication plans
are useful tools to help us ensure that we are identifying and reaching the appropriate
stakeholders and to help staff focus on messages NRC wants to convey. The Plan was
distributed to all NRC staff working in the decommissioning arena in June 2001.
Training sessions on the implementation of the Plan are planned for late summer 2001.
On June 1, 2001, the DWM staff conducted a public meeting on its project to update
and consolidate NMSS’s decommissioning policy and guidance. The purpose of the
meeting was to explain the scope of the effort, the business process redesign
techniques that will be used, coordination with industry efforts to standardize guidance,
and to receive stakeholder input. The meeting was attended by representatives of
licensees, industry groups, public interest groups, and a state agency.
Page 8 of 8
CRITERIA FOR PLACING A SITE ON THE
SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN LIST
Attachment 2
CRITERIA FOR PLACING A SITE ON THE SDMP
For a site to be placed on the original Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) it had
to meet one of the following five criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Problems with a viable responsible organization (e.g., inability to pay for, or
unwillingness to perform, decommissioning);
Presence of large amounts of soil contamination or unused settling ponds or burial
grounds that may be difficult to dispose of;
Long-term presence of contaminated, unused facility buildings;
License previously terminated; or
Contamination or potential contamination of the groundwater from onsite wastes.
In accordance with SECY-98-155, the following criteria is used to add new sites to the SDMP
list:
1.
2.
Restricted-use sites; or
Complex unrestricted-use sites (sites requiring detailed site-specific dose modeling,
sites subject to heightened public, State, or Congressional interest; or sites with
questionable financial viability).
Page 1 of 1
CURRENT SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN (SDMP)
AND COMPLEX DECOMMISSIONING SITES
Attachment 3
CURRENT SDMP AND COMPLEX DECOMMISSIONING SITES
Name
Location
Date Put
On SDMP
Date DP
Submitted
Date DP
Approved
Cleanup
Criteria
Projected
Removal
1
Jefferson Proving Ground
(Dept. Of Army)
Madison, IN
2/95
8/99
revised 7/01*
11/04*
LTR-RES
1/06
2
Watertown GSA
Watertown, MA
3/90
10/92
9/93
Action-UNRES
12/02
3
AAR Manufacturing, Inc.
Livonia, MI
8/94
4/96
revised 9/99
5/98
3/03*
LTR-UNRES
5/05
4
Dow Chemical Co.
Bay City, MI
3/92
10/95
revised 6/01*
7/97
8/02*
LTR-UNRES
7/03
5
Michigan Department of
Natural Resources
Kawkawlin MI
3/90
8/02*
9/04* +
LTR-UNRES
7/08
6
SCA Services
Kawkawlin, MI
3/92
5/03*
3/07* +
LTR-RES
2/11
7
Lake City Army
Ammunition Plant
Independence, MO
3/90
4/99
7/00
Action-UNRES
9/01
8
**Mallinckrodt Chemical
Inc.
St. Louis, MO
NA
(Phase1) 11/97
(Phase2)12/01*
8/01*
11/05* +
LTR-RES
10/09
9
Heritage Minerals
Lakehurst, NJ
5/92
11/97
8/99
Action-UNRES
6/02
Page 1 of 3
Date Put
On SDMP
Date DP
Submitted
Date DP
Approved
Cleanup
Criteria
Projected
Removal
Name
Location
10
Shieldalloy Metallurgical
Corp.
Newfield, NJ
3/90
6/02*
10/06* +
LTR-RES
9/10
11
Fansteel, Inc.
Muskogee, OK
3/90
8/99
1/09* +
LTR-RES
8/20
12
Kaiser Aluminum
Tulsa, OK
8/94
(Phase 1) 8/98
(Phase 2) 6/01
2/00
12/02*
Action-UNRES
LTR-UNRES
11/06
13
Kerr-McGee
Cimarron, OK
3/90
4/95
8/99
Action-UNRES
6/04
14
Kerr-McGee
Cushing, OK
3/90
4/94
8/99
Action-UNRES
12/03
15
Sequoyah Fuels Corp.
Gore, OK
6/93
3/99
8/04* +
LTR-RES
4/09
16
Babcock & Wilcox
Vandergrift, PA
10/93
1/96
10/98
Action-UNRES
7/03
17
Babcock & Wilcox
(Shallow Land Disposal
Area)
Vandergrift, PA
10/95
6/01*
5/05* +
LTR-RES
3/09
18
Cabot Corp.
Reading, PA
3/90
8/98
7/02*
LTR-UNRES
2/03
19
Cabot Corp.
Revere, PA
3/90
11/97
revised 3/01
8/01* +
LTR-UNRES
9/01
20
**Kiski Valley Water
Pollution Control Auth.
Vandergrift, PA
NA
3/02*
1/07*
LTR-RES
12/10
21
Molycorp, Inc.
Wash., PA
9/93
6/99
8/00
Action-UNRES
TBD
Page 2 of 3
Date Put
On SDMP
Date DP
Submitted
Date DP
Approved
Cleanup
Criteria
Projected
Removal
Name
Location
22
Molycorp, Inc.
York, PA
3/90
8/95
6/00
Action-UNRES
10/02
23
Permagrain Products
Media, PA
3/90
4/98
7/98
Action-UNRES
7/03
24
Safety Light Corp.
Bloomsburg, PA
3/90
11/98
9/99
LTR-UNRES
12/04
25
Westinghouse Electric
Waltz Mill, PA
3/90
4/97
1/00
LTR-UNRES
8/02
26
Whittaker Corp.
Greenville, PA
3/90
12/00
12/03*
LTR-RES
8/09
1/05
NA
8/98
Lawrenceberg, TN
7/00
Action-UNRES
(Buildings)
12/00
LTR-UNRES
(Soil)
* - Estimated Date
** - Complex Decommissioning Site (Non-SDMP)
+ - Timeline for approving DP is protracted due to (1) satisfying NEPA requirements, (2) conduct of public hearing, (3) Multi-phase DP
submittals, or (4) combination of all the above
Action - SDMP Action Plan Criteria
LTR - License Termination Rule Criteria
RES - Restricted Use
UNRES - Unrestricted Use
27
**Union Carbide
NOTES:
•
Projected removal date for Molycorp, Inc. Washington, PA site will be determined after NRC receives and approves the updatd
schedule from Molycorp.
•
NFS is a complex decommissioning site not listed above because; (1) it is an operating licensee undergoing partial decommissioning,
(2) project managed by the Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards.
•
Two sites; Watertown Mall and Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing (3M) were removed from the SDMP in 2000.
•
The cleanup criteria identified in this table presents the staffs most recent information, but does not necessarily represent the current
or likely outcome.
Page 3 of 3
SITES REMOVED FROM THE SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT
PLAN (SDMP) AFTER SUCCESSFUL REMEDIATION
Attachment 4
SITES REMOVED FROM THE SDMP AFTER SUCCESSFUL REMEDIATION
Name
Location
Date
Date of
Date
On SDMP Lic. Term. Off SDMP
Current Use
1
Pratt & Whitney
Middletown, CT
6/92
6/71
10/95
Property and warehouses remain
under Pratt & Whitney control
2
Texas Instruments, Inc.
Attleboro, MA
3/90
3/97
3/97
Managed under active MA license
3
Watertown Mall
Watertown, MA
3/90
1970
9/00
Commercial retail and recreational
use
4
Anne Arundel County /
Curtis Bay
Anne Arundel County,
MD
1/93
NA
7/97
Site is currently used for baseball
fields and a prison
5
Frome Investments
Detroit, MI
8/94
NA
7/96
Currently operating as a warehouse
6
Minnesota Mining &
Manufacturing (3M)
Pine County, MN
3/90
10/67
8/00
Site is currently forest land.
7
Allied Signal Aerospace
Teterboro, NJ
3/90
1975
2/92
Aerospace operation still active
under new owner (Honeywell),
property under owner control.
Page 1 of 4
Date
Date of
Date
On SDMP Lic. Term. Off SDMP
Name
Location
8
RTI Inc.
Rockaway, NJ
5/92
2/97
1/97
Property attached to facility owned
and operated by Sterigenics, Intl,
NRC License No. 29-30308-01.
9
Chevron Corp.
Pawling, NY
4/92
1975
6/94
Recreation area controlled by the
Department of Interior
10
Alcoa
Cleveland, OH
3/90
2/61
4/96
ALCOA’s Cleveland works remains
a large, multiple-function aluminum
refining, casting and refinishing
facility
11
Chemetron Corp. (Bert
Ave)
Cleveland, OH
3/90
7/99
7/99
This ravine-like, former uncontrolled
landfill is now an engineered
disposal cell with a thick soil cover,
topped by a level, grassy field with
unrestricted use
12
Chemetron Corp. (Harvard
Ave)
Cleveland, OH
3/90
7/99
7/99
This site is now owned by McGeanRohco, Inc. There is a closed
engineered disposal cell at the west
end of the property( where the main
processing building stood) and the
buildings remaining on the site are
being used for industrial chemical
production and processing.
Page 2 of 4
Current Use
Date
Date of
Date
On SDMP Lic. Term. Off SDMP
Name
Location
13
Clevite Corp.
Cleveland, OH
8/94
NA
9/98
Building used for multiple small
businesses and light manufacturing
14
Elkem Metals Inc.
Marietta, OH
1/95
1985
9/99
This site is a manufacturer of
manganese products for the steel
industry, with several onsite storage
facilities.
15
Old Vic
Cleveland, OH
3/92
7/93
12/93
This site is now the location of an
ongoing warehousing operation.
16
Babcox & Wilcox
Apollo, PA
9/93
4/97
1/97
Fenced field
17
Budd Co.
Philadelphia, PA
3/90
4/93
4/93
Property secure; under owner
control
18
Cabot Corp.
Boyerton, PA
3/90
Active
9/98
Active license
19
Pesses Co. (METCOA)
Pulaski, PA
3/90
7/86
9/99
Abandoned buildings and property
controlled inside security fence
20
Schott Glass Technologies
Durea, PA
3/90
4/92
9/98
Security fence maintained around
owner controlled area
21
UNC Recovery Systems
Wood River Junction,
RI
3/90
9/95
10/95
Property remains under UNC
ownership, CERLCA issues being
addressed
Page 3 of 4
Current Use
22
Name
Location
Amax Inc.
Washington, WV
Date
Date of
Date
On SDMP Lic. Term. Off SDMP
3/90
6/94
Page 4 of 4
6/94
Current Use
Department of Energy site
SITES REMOVED FROM THE SITE DECOMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN (SDMP) BY TRANSFER TO AGREEMENT
STATES OR U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Attachment 5
SITES REMOVED FROM THE SDMP BY TRANSFER TO AGREEMENT STATES OR EPA
Name & Location
Date
Date
Cleanup
On SDMP Transferred Criteria
Status
1
Kerr-McGee (West Chicago)
Chicago, IL
3/90
11/90
Surface- 20 pCi/g Utotal
Subsurface-50 pCi/g Utotal
Active decommissioning, estimated
completion date-2004. No unforseen
factors delaying decommissioning.
2
Englehard Corp.
Plainville, MA
1/92
3/97
Buildings - SDMP
Soils - To be determined
Analyzing chemical contamination, not
actively decommissioning. No
unforseen factors delaying
decommissioning. Estimated closure
date - 2003.
3
Nuclear Metals, Inc.
Concord, MA
6/93
3/97
SDMP - but licensee wants
to revise criteria
Current Licensee, active
decommissioning. No unforseen
factors delaying decommissioning. No
license termination planned.
4
Wyman Gordon
N. Grafton, MA
4/91
3/97
To Be Determined
Groundwater monitoring, no plans to
decommission. No unforseen factors
delaying decommissioning. No
estimated site closure date.
5
West Lake Landfill (to EPA)
Bridgeton, MO
6/92
6/95
Site will utilize cap or cover
rather than soil cleanup
criteria. If soil remediation
is required - 40 CFR 192.
EPA reviewing remediation plan.
Remediation to start in 2001. No
estimated date for completion. No
unforseen factors delaying
decommissioning.
Page 1 of 2
Name & Location
Date
Date
Cleanup
On SDMP Transferred Criteria
Status
6
Advanced Medical Systems, Inc.
Cleveland, OH
3/90
8/99
LTR
Site being relicensed. No
decommissioning to date. No
unforseen factors delaying
decommissioning. No estimated
license termination date.
7
BP Chemicals America
Lima, OH
4/92
8/99
SDMP
Active decommissioning. Estimated
license termination date is 2001. No
unforseen factors delaying
decommissioning.
8
Horizons, Inc.
Cleveland, OH
8/94
8/99
SDMP
Non-licensee. Active
decommissioning. Estimated clean-up
completion date 2000. No unforseen
factors delaying decommissioning.
9
Northeast Ohio Reg. Sewer Dist.
Cleveland, OH
4/92
8/99
SDMP
On hold - no activity. No estimated
clean-up completion date. No
unforseen factors delaying
decommissioning.
10
RMI Titanium Co.
Ashtabula, OH
8/91
8/99
SDMP
Active decommissioning. No
unforseen factors delaying
decommissioning. Estimated
termination date - 2005+
11
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp.
Cambridge, OH
3/90
8/99
LTR
Active decommissioning. Estimated
termination date - 2002+ if terminated
at all. Identification of additional offsite residential contamination delaying
decommissioning.
LTR - License Termination Rule Criteria
SDMP - SDMP Action Plan Criteria
Page 2 of 2
CONTAMINATED FORMERLY LICENSED SITES
Attachment 6
Site Status Summaries
Attachment 7
AAR MANUFACTURING INC.
(Updated May 29, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Livonia, MI
STB-0362 (terminated)
04000235
Terminated
Kristina Banovac
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
Surface and subsurface thorium contamination has been identified at several locations in open
land areas on the site. Contaminated soil has also been identified below the building
foundation in three locations.
AAR Manufacturing Inc. (AAR) submitted a site remediation plan (RP), including a site
characterization report, for NRC review and approval on April 8, 1996. The NRC staff reviewed
the RP and provided comments to AAR on February 13, 1997. NRC concluded that AAR’s RP
was unacceptable as presented, and provided AAR with an acceptable method for surveying
and averaging concentrations of thorium in contaminated subsurface soil. AAR submitted a
revised RP on October 14, 1997, and the NRC approved the revised RP on May 22, 1998.
Remediation at the site began on October 12, 1998. AAR conducted geoprobe sampling
onsite, to more precisely locate areas of contamination. As a result of the geoprobe sampling,
additional soil contamination was identified in the open area on the western side of the property.
On September 17, 1999, AAR submitted the “Site Characterization Report, Phase II, Former
Brooks & Perkins, Inc. Site, AAR Manufacturing Group, Inc., Livonia, Michigan” from B.Koh &
Associates, Inc., which included a proposed revision to the approved RP. The proposed plan
involved remediation of only soils containing thorium concentrations exceeding 116 pCi/g, which
is the unimportant quantity (0.05 weight percent) of source material, exempt from regulation,
established in 10 CFR 40.13(a). The NRC, on March 31, 2000, informed AAR that, based on a
dose assessment completed by NRC staff, NRC could not approve the proposed remediation
criteria and that further remediation at the site would be conducted at its own risk. NRC gave
AAR the option to return to the RP approved on May 22, 1998, or to perform its own sitespecific dose assessment, and submit it for NRC review. The March 31, 2000 letter also
included NRC comments on Phase II of the Site Characterization Report.
AAR responded to NRC comments on July 17, 2000 and submitted the “Summary of Final
Survey and Sampling Data for the Former Brooks and Perkins, Inc. Site, AAR Manufacturing,
Inc., Livonia, Michigan, March 2000.” This summary report described remediation of indoor
areas conducted in January 2000, and provided sampling and survey results. NRC has several
technical questions and comments on this submittal that will be addressed during a future
inspection.
Page 1 of 60
During an inspection conducted on June 15, 2000, Region III inspectors found that
contaminated materials excavated during indoor remediation activities were being temporarily
stored on-site without posting and control. In its approved RP, AAR agreed to control and
conspicuously post contaminated materials resulting from remediation activities. Therefore,
NRC requested in a letter dated September 18, 2000 that AAR take immediate action to
conspicuously post (as specified in 10 CFR 20.1902) the fenced area where contaminated
materials are currently being stored and secure the area to restrict public access. The letter
also asked AAR to meet with NRC to discuss the issues dealing with the decommissioning of its
site.
A public meeting between AAR and NRC was held on November 14, 2000. Topics discussed
were the indoor remediation activities, the contaminated materials being stored on site, the
proposed remediation plan, and the site-specific dose assessment. NRC provided AAR with a
copy of the current guidance, NUREG-1727, “NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review Plan,”
to review before formally submitting the dose assessment. At the meeting, AAR agreed to
make arrangements for the disposal of contaminated material being stored on site, submit the
cost differential between remediation of the site under the approved criteria vs. the proposed
criteria, and submit the site-specific dose assessment by December 15, 2000. AAR submitted
the site-specific dose assessment on December 29, 2000, which did not include enough
information to begin a technical review. The staff generated a request for additional information
(RAI) to obtain the needed information; however, the RAI is on hold until the policy issue of
using 40.13 (a) for decommissioning is resolved.
Involved Parties:
Mr. Howard A. Pulsifer, Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary
AAR Corporation
One AAR Place
1100 N. Wood Dale Road
Wood Dale, IL 60191
Telephone: 630-227-2040
Dr. Barry Koh, President
B. Koh & Associates, Inc.
9199 Reisterstown Road, Suite 111-c
Owings Mills, MD 21117-4520
Telephone: 410-356-6612
Mr. David W. Minnaar, Chief
Licensing and Registration Section
Division of Radiological Health
Michigan Department of Public Health
3423 N. Logan/Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
Lansing, MI 48906
Telephone: 517-335-8706
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site.
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
Contamination at the site was identified as a result of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
terminated license review project. This site was owned and operated by Brooks & Perkins, Inc.
Page 2 of 60
from 1959 - 1971. AAR purchased the property in 1981. Since AAR is not responsible for the
contamination onsite, it believes it should not be responsible for the cost of remediation. In an
effort to reduce the cost of remediation, AAR submitted a revised RP on September 17, 1999.
AAR takes the position that less than 116 pCi/g thorium is an exempt quantity (based on 10
CFR 40.13), and therefore, only soil exceeding 116 pCi/g thorium will be remediated. The
inconsistency between “exempt quantities” of source material and allowable quantities for
unrestricted release is a significant policy issue that will require a Commission decision to
resolve. The NRC previously approved a 13 pCi/g thorium release limit as specified in “Method
for Surveying and Averaging Concentrations of Thorium in Contaminated Subsurface Soil”
(NRC, February 1997). The staff reviewed the revised RP and based on a dose assessment
found that the proposed revision to the RP could not be accepted. The staff gave AAR the
option to return to its approved RP perform a site-specific dose assessment. AAR presented its
site-specific dose assessment during a November 14, 2000 public meeting and formally
submitted it for NRC review on December 29, 2000. After a preliminary review of the dose
assessment, it was determined that there was insufficient information to conduct an extensive
technical review.
Also at the November 14, 2000 meeting, AAR presented Th-230 as a contaminant in the dose
assessment. Historically, AAR has only considered Th-232 and Th-228 as contaminants on
site. Apparently, elevated concentrations of Th-230 were found in soils on the AAR site during
initial site characterization in 1995, but the results from the laboratory analysis of samples were
not formally presented to the NRC until March 19, 2001. NRC has requested AAR to further
research this issue to determine whether uranium contamination is also present, and to
establish a thorium isotope distribution.
Since AAR is not a licensee, it is not obligated to submit a decommissioning funding plan. AAR
has not provided certification of financial assurance to cover the cost of decommissioning. AAR
has questioned its responsibility for funding the cost of decommissioning, given that it is not
responsible for the contamination on the site. If remediation costs become large, it is possible
that AAR may legally challenge its responsibility to fund the remediation activities.
Elevated levels of thorium have also been identified along the fence separating AAR and CSX
Transportation, Inc. (CSX). Although contamination appears to be very limited, there is the
potential that financial responsibility for the contamination on CSX property may become an
issue. No remediation has been performed by CSX.
To date, public interest in remediation activities at the site is minimal.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
C
C
A Commission decision is required to resolve the issue of whether the 40.13(a) criteria
should be approved.
An environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required.
Standard assumptions.
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE 5/05
Page 3 of 60
B&W PARKS OPERATING FACILITY
(Updated May 24, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Parks Township, Armstrong County, PA
SNM-414
07000364
Active
Amir Kouhestani
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The BWX Technologies (BWXT) facility is located in Parks Township, Armstrong Co. PA.,
approximately 37 kilometers (KM) (23 miles) east-northeast of Pittsburgh. Principal radioactive
contaminants at the site are americium (Am)-241, plutonium (Pu), uranium, cobalt (Co)-60, and
cesium (Cs)-137.
BWXT submitted the decommissioning plan for the below-grade structures and soil in January
1996. The NRC approved the decommissioning plan in October 1998. BWXT has completed
decommissioning the above-grade structures at the site under its license, and it is
decommissioning the soils and sub-grade structures and utilities under its decommissioning
plan. BWXT provides interim final survey reports of project areas decommissioned. The Oak
Ridge Institute of Science and Education (ORISE) has performed interim confirmatory surveys
of the project areas decommissioned.
BWXT will remediate the facility with the intention of requesting unrestricted use of the site and
termination of its radioactive materials license. BWXT is using the SDMP Action Plan criteria
as the cleanup level, with a site-specific value of 1250 pCi/g for Pu-241.
Involved Parties:
BWX Technologies, Inc
Richard Bartosik, Licensing Manager
R.D. 1 Box 355
Vandergrift, PA 15690
Mr. Robert Maiers, Chief, Decommissioning Section
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Radiation Protection
Rachel Carson State Office Building
P.O. Box 8469
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469
Page 4 of 60
Mr. James Yusko, Site Coordinator
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Radiation Protection
400 Waterfront Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4745
Mr. Roy Woods, Health Physicist
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Radiation Protection
400 Waterfront Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4745
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
No financial assurance issues have been identified at this time. The staff has not identified any
major offsite environmental issues that will not be addressed during decommissioning of the
facility.
Involved politicians/interest groups
Carmen Scialabba
c/o Honorable John Murtha
2423 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
The Kiski Coalition to Save Our Children
P.O. Box 185
Leechburg, PA 15656
Mr. Bud Shannon
Chairman, Parks Township Board of Supervisors
RD 1, Box 645
Vandergrift, PA 15690
Citizens Action for a Safe Environment
P.O. Box 185
Leechburg, PA 15656
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
Standard assumptions
Confirmatory surveys for individual building footprints will be done by Region I as
remediation is completed.
The site-wide confirmatory survey will be performed by ORISE.
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE OF CLOSURE 7/03
Page 5 of 60
B&W PARKS SHALLOW LAND DISPOSAL AREA
(Updated May 24, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Parks Township, Armstrong County, PA
SNM-2001
07003085
Active
Amir Kouhestani
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The BWX Technologies (BWXT) Shallow Land Disposal Area is located in Parks Township,
Armstrong Co., PA., approximately 37 Km (23 miles) east-northeast of Pittsburgh. The site
consists of 10 trenches that were used to dispose of wastes, scrap, and trash from a nearby
nuclear fuel fabrication facility in Apollo, PA. Principal radioactive contaminants at the site are
natural, enriched, and depleted uranium, and lesser quantities of Am-241, plutonium, and
thorium.
This site is designated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as a Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site. USACE is currently performing a Preliminary
Assessment (PA) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA). If the result of USACE’s site PA indicates a need
for further investigation, USACE will follow the CERCLA process leading to site remediation. In
the event USACE proceeds with site remediation, the staff plans to suspend BWXT’s license
while USACE remediates the site. BWXT’s current plan indicates license termination with
restrictions on future site use. A Decommissioning Plan (DP) for this site was due on or before
June 4, 2001. However, due to USACE’s activities, the licensee requested an extension for
submitting the DP in May 2001.
Involved Parties:
BWX Technologies, Inc
Richard Bartosik, Licensing Manager
R.D. 1, Box 355
Vandergrift, PA 15690
Robin J. Bullock, Sr. Envr. Manager
Atlantic Richfield Company
307 East Park Avenue
Anaconda, MT 59711
Mr. Robert Maiers, Chief, Decommissioning Section
PADEP
Bureau of Radiation Protection
Rachel Carson State Office Building
P.O. Box 8469
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469
Mr. James Yusko, Site Coordinator
PADEP
Bureau of Radiation Protection
400 Waterfront Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4745
Page 6 of 60
Mr. Roy Woods, Health Physicist
PADEP
Bureau of Radiation Protection
400 Waterfront Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4745
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
NRC staff currently anticipates that, absent remediation by the USACE, BWXT will request
license termination, with restrictions on future land use. There is significant public and
Congressional interest in the site. PADEP is also involved in the decommissioning, and PADEP
will not assume long-term stewardship for the site (i.e., become the institutional control
authority) if it is decommissioned with land-use restrictions. No financial assurance issues have
been identified at this time. The staff has not identified any major off-site environmental issues
that will not be addressed during decommissioning of the facility.
Involved Politicians/Interest Groups:
Carmen Scialabba
c/o Honorable John Murtha
2423 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
The Kiski Coalition to Save Our Children
P.O. Box 185
Leechburg, PA 15656
Mr. Bud Shannon, Chairman
Parks Township Board of Supervisors
RD 1, Box 645
Vandergrift, PA 15690
Citizens Action for a Safe Environment
P.O. Box 185
Leechburg, PA 15656
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
•
Standard Assumptions
BWXT will request license termination with restrictions on future land use.
The time required for the licensee to complete decommissioning activities is based on
information in NUREG-1613, “Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),
Decommissioning of the Babcock and Wilcox Shallow Land Disposal Area in Parks
Township, Pennsylvania” (note this DEIS was withdrawn in September 1997).
ORISE will perform a limited Confirmatory Survey, during the Final Site Survey Report
(FSSR) review phase to validate radiation levels on and around the site.
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE OF CLOSURE 3/09
Page 7 of 60
CABOT PERFORMANCE MATERIALS INC. (CABOT)
(Updated June 18, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Reading, PA
SMC-1562
04000927
Active (possession only)
Ted Smith
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
There is surface and subsurface uranium and thorium contamination, in the form of slag, along
a slope area at the edge of the site.
Cabot submitted a DP, for NRC review and approval, on August 28, 1998. NRC noticed the
receipt of the DP and provided an opportunity for a hearing in the Federal Register on October
28, 1998. Two parties [Reading Redevelopment Authority/City of Reading, and Jobert Inc./
Metals Trucking Inc. (owner of the site at the time of filing)] petitioned for a hearing. In March
2000, the City of Reading took title to the property. In May 2000, the Jobert Inc./ Metals
Trucking Inc. hearing request was vacated. Several months of private negotiations between
the City of Reading and Cabot Corporation concluded with the City’s request to withdraw their
hearing request. The court vacated the City of Readings hearing request In October 2000. A
representative from St. Joseph’s hospital has expressed interest in the River Road easement
portion of the site and has met with NRC staff, as well as, Congressional staff from that District.
The DP proposes unrestricted release of the site in its current condition. Because of a lack of
dose-modeling guidance and staff resource limitations, review of the DP was delayed until the
spring of 1999. The NRC contracted with Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) to review the
dose assessment. SNL completed its preliminary review and presented its findings in a
meeting on October 5, 1999. Issues raised as a result of this review are discussed below. A
request for additional information was provided October 19, 1999. A second SNL review,
based on Cabot’s additional information, was completed in June 2000. The NRC is currently
reviewing the SNL analysis and Cabot’s latest DP.
Involved Parties:
Cabot Performance Material, Inc.
Tim Knapp, Radiation Safety Officer
P.O. Box 1608, County Line Road
Boyertown, PA 19512-1608
Telephone: 610-369-8520
Steffan R. Helbig, PG
ST Environmental Professional, Inc.
RR 4, Box 239 Lutz Road
Boyertown, PA 19512
Telephone: 610-754-9444
Ivna Shanbaky
PADEP- Radiation Protection
555 North Lane, Suite 6010 Lee Park
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2233
Telephone: 610-832-6032
Page 8 of 60
Jonathan E. Rinde, Esq. (Attorney for current property owner)
Manko, Gold & Katcher, LLP
401 City Avenue, Suite 500
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: 610-660-5700
Carl Engleman (Attorney for City of Reading and Redevelopment Authority)
Rhoda, Stoudt & Bradley
501 Washington Street
Reading, PA 19601
Telephone: 610-374-8293
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site.
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
The slag was generated from the processing of iron and tin ores for tantalum in 1967 and 1968.
Additional source material was placed on the pile from decontamination of the process building
in 1977 and 1978, and the Canton Yards site in Baltimore, MD. The pile encompasses
approximately 5094 cubic meters (180,000 cubic feet). The average contamination levels are
45 pCi/g thorium-232 and progeny, and 30 pCi/g of uranium-238 and progeny. Cabot proposes
to leave the material in place, without remediation, under criteria in the License Termination
Rule.
Cabot proposed worker and trespasser scenarios, but did not analyze the default resident
farmer. SNL’s preliminary review of the DP indicates that doses could be higher if a residential
scenario is considered. Staff requested the licensee to consider a resident gardener scenario.
Licensee’s Request for Additional Information (RAI) response considered a resident gardener
scenario as part of a sensitivity analysis. SNL’s review of licensee’s response raised further
questions about several parameters in the resident gardener scenario. A key issue is whether
a slab-on-grade building at the edge of the slag-pile should be considered.
While conducting research and analysis on slags, the Office of Research (RES) identified some
issues with the Reading site characterization methodology. In particular, RES questions both
the quantity and concentration of radioactive slag at the site. These questions will be
incorporated in an additional RAI to the licensee.
No major off-site environmental or financial assurance issues are associated with this site. A
potential financial assurance concern would arise if off-site disposal were required.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
•
Cabot’s proposal for unrestricted release without remediation is valid.
Cabot’s site characterization is acceptable.
Cabot takes no more than 60 working days to respond to the RAI.
Standard assumptions5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE 2/03
Page 9 of 60
CABOT PERFORMANCE MATERIALS INC. (CABOT)
(Updated June 18, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Revere, PA
SMC-1562
04000927
Active (possession only)
Ted Smith
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
This site contains surface and subsurface uranium and thorium contamination in the form of
slag in four discrete areas of the site.
Cabot submitted a Decommissioning Plan (DP), for NRC review and approval, on November
17, 1997. The NRC noticed the receipt of the DP and provided an opportunity for a hearing in
the Federal Register on December 19, 1997. There were no requests for a hearing, and public
interest in decommissioning activities at this site is minimal.
The DP proposed unrestricted release of the site in its current condition. Because of a lack of
guidance and resource limitations, the review of the DP was delayed until the spring of 1999.
The NRC contracted with Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) to review the dose assessment.
SNL completed its preliminary review in June 2000. NRC issued a request for additional
information (RAI) on December 28, 2000. Cabot replied on February 15, 2001. In March 2001,
Cabot submitted a revised DP and dose assessment . The Cabot dose assessment considers
industrial worker, and resident gardener scenarios.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) and Safety Evaluation Report (SER) have been completed
by NRC staff and a summary was published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2001. A
Commission Paper is being developed which will recommend implementation of the findings in
the EA and SER.
Involved Parties:
Cabot Performance Material, Inc.
Tim Knapp, Radiation Safety Officer
P.O. Box 1608, County Line Road
Boyertown, PA 19512-1608
Telephone: 610-369-8520
Ivna Shanbaky
PADEP- Radiation Protection
555 North Lane, Suite 6010 Lee Park
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2233
Telephone: 610-832-6032
Steffan R. Helbig, PG
ST Environmental Professional, Inc.
RR 4, Box 239 Lutz Road
Boyertown, PA 19512
Telephone: 610-754-9444
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site.
Page 10 of 60
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
The slag was generated from the processing of pyrochlore ore for niobium in the late 1960s and
early 1970s. In 1988, Cabot performed decommissioning activities. During a final survey in
1993, ORISE found that, although average concentrations satisfied existing NRC guidelines,
individual fragments of slag at, and below, the surface exceeded these guidelines. Specifically,
total uranium ranged from 20 - 1800 pCi/g and total thorium ranged from 3.5 - 2200 pCi/g in two
slag fragments.
Based on inventory records, Cabot estimates that a maximum of 0.0065 Ci of thorium and
0.016 Ci or uranium remain at the site, spread over the four locations. The thorium and
uranium are contained in slag fragments which are distributed with building debris and
uncontaminated slag in the four areas. A total volume of 820,000 ft3 (23,000 m3), and a total
mass of approximately 46.4 x 106 kilograms of affected material remains at the site. The staff
questions Cabot’s volume estimates. The staff’s independent analysis indicates that the site is
acceptable for release if a lower, more realistic, volume estimate is used in the dose modeling.
No major offsite environmental or financial assurance issues are associated with this site. A
potential financial assurance concern could arise if offsite disposal is required.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
•
Cabot’s proposal for unrestricted release without remediation is valid.
Existing characterization data is sufficient to demonstrate final status survey
requirements.
Staff’s conclusions are accepted by the Commission.
Standard assumptions.
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE 9/01
Page 11 of 60
KERR McGEE - CIMARRON
(Updated May 24, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Crescent, OK
SNM-928
07000925
Active (possession only)
Ken Kalman
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
There is uranium contamination in groundwater at Burial Area 1 in the eastern portion of the
Cimarron site. Technetium-99 has also been found in the groundwater in the vicinity of Waste
Pond 1 in the central portion of the Cimarron site.
The licensee submitted a DP in April 1995. Pursuant to NRC staff comments that the DP had
not adequately addressed groundwater, the licensee submitted a DP groundwater evaluation
report in July 1998. In coordination with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ), the NRC approved Cimarron’s DP in August 1999. Cimarron proposed, in its DP, a
groundwater release standard of 180 pCi/l for uranium. NRC staff approved this proposed
groundwater release standard but added a license condition to note that it would not terminate
Cimarron’s license until Cimarron demonstrates that the total uranium concentrations in all wells
have been below the groundwater release criteria for eight consecutive quarters. In May 2001,
Cimarron met with NRC staff to discuss alternatives that Cimarron is considering for
groundwater remediation in the vicinity of Burial Area 1.
In April 1996, the NRC amended Cimarron’s license to release the Phase I subareas of the site,
for unrestricted use, they had no history of licensed activities, and concentrations of uranium in
the soil were below NRC’s guidelines. Phase I subareas comprised 695 acres of the 840 acre
site. In accordance with its Phase II Final Status Survey Plan (FSSP) (approved in March
1997) and its Phase III FSSP (approved in September 1998), Cimarron is submitting FSSRs
for the unrestricted release of other discrete subareas of the site. NRC staff amended the
license in April 2001 to release Subareas H, I, L, and M. The NRC staff has completed its
review of Final Status Survey Reports for Subareas G and K and will conduct confirmatory
surveys of these two subareas in August 2001.
The site is also licensed for on-site disposal of up to 500,000 cubic feet of soil containing
uranium and thorium at the levels specified in Option 2 of the BTP (October 1989).
Approximately 164,518 cubic feet were emplaced in the first disposal cell, 155,952 cubic feet
were emplaced in the second disposal cell, and 121,070 cubic feet were emplaced in the third
and final cell which was completed in July 2000. In total, the Option 2 disposal cells contain
approximately 441,540 cubic feet of contaminated material. This area will not be released for
unrestricted use until NRC approves Cimarron’s Subarea N Report and and performs its
independent confirmatory survey. Assuming no unforeseen problems, this release is scheduled
to take place by January 2003, along with the release of Subareas G, K, and F.
Page 12 of 60
Involved Party:
Cimarron Corporation
123 Robert S. Kerr, MT 2006
Oklahoma City, OK
Jess Larsen, Site Manager
Telephone: 405-270-2288 (Oklahoma City)
405-282-6722 (Cimarron Site)
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site.
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
Groundwater samples have shown high concentrations of uranium, technetium-99, fluorides,
and nitrates. In coordination with ODEQ, NRC has accepted Cimarron’s proposed standard of
180 pCi/l for uranium in groundwater. This standard equates to a 25 millirem/year dose. The
NRC will not terminate Cimarron’s license until Cimarron can demonstrate that groundwater
concentrations are below the proposed standard for two full years. Technetium-99
concentrations appear to be diminishing over time. NRC staff is concerned with a uranium
contaminated groundwater plume emanating from the vicinity of Burial Area 1. ODEQ will
retain control over the non-radiological groundwater components.
There is minimal public interest in the decommissioning activities at this site. No financial
assurance issues have been identified at this time. The staff has not identified any major offsite environmental issues that will not be addressed during decommissioning of the facility.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
As early as October 31, 2003, Cimarron will be able to submit a report to demonstrate
that uranium concentrations in groundwater were below 180 pCi/l for the past two years.
As noted in License Amendment 15, the NRC will not terminate Cimarron’s license until
Cimarron has successfully made this demonstration.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE - 6/04
Page 13 of 60
KERR McGEE - CUSHING REFINERY
(Updated May 23, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
Licensing Status:
Project Manager:
Cushing, Oklahoma
SNM-1999
070-03073
Active/Decommissioning
Stewart Brown
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The licensee submitted a DP for the site in April 1994, that included a request for on-site
disposal. The licensee revised the DP on August 17, 1998. In place of on-site disposal, the
licensee proposed to ship the waste exceeding the SDMP Action Plan Criteria to Envirocare for
disposal. The licensee, in its letter dated August 30, 1996, requested NRC that approve five
sections of the DP, which would allow remediation of Acid Sludge Pit 4. On September 3,
1998, the staff approved these sections of the DP. The staff completed its review of the revised
DP in August 1999.
Involved Parties:
Jeff Lux
Mike Broderick
Kerr-McGee Corporation
Kerr-McGee Center
Po Box 25861
Waste Management Division
ODEQ
707 North Robinson
Oklahoma City OK 73125
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-6087
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
No financial assurance issues have been identified at this time. The staff has not identified any
major off-site environmental issues that will not be addressed during decommissioning of the
facility. There is moderate public interest in site remediation activities. The involved public
interest group is:
Citizens Oversight Committee
c/o Steve Cubbage
123 West Boardway
Cushing, OK 74023
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE
12/03
Page 14 of 60
DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY (DOW)
(Updated May 31, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Bay City, MI
STB-527
04000017
Active
Sam Nalluswami
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
Remediation at the Midland site has been successfully completed and the site was released for
unrestricted use by License Amendment No. 8 on March 3, 2000.
Contamination at Dow’s Bay City, Michigan, site consists of thorium contaminated slag storage
piles.
Dow submitted a DP and a license amendment request, for NRC review and approval, on
October 12, 1995. The DP and subsequent documents that Dow submitted were approved at
different times. The remediation approach and methods were approved in July 1996. Notice of
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Opportunity for Hearing for the issuance of this
license amendment were published in the Federal Register on July 19, 1996. Approval of the
unrestricted-use criteria, based on SDMP Action Plan Option 1, and the final survey plan, was
granted in July 1997.
Dow made a presentation on September 14, 2000, at the NRC Headquarters and explained
that the decommissioning of the Bay City site has been complicated by a larger volume of
contamination than originally estimated, the presence of wetlands, and winter flooding. Based
on these factors, Dow submitted an application for license amendment to extend the time
schedule for decommissioning to December 31, 2002, and it was approved on November 3,
2000. The remaining area to be remediated is about 9.1 acres (about 25%) of the original Bay
City site. Dow is planning to submit a revised decommissioning plan by June 30, 2001. This
revision is intended to address the complications discussed above.
Involved party:
Dave Minnar
Director
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Drinking Water & Radiological Protection Division
3423 N. Martin Luther King Blvd.
P.O. Box 30630
Lansing, MI 48909-8130
Page 15 of 60
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site.
During the meeting on September 14, 2000, Dow representatives explained that the wetlands
and frequent flooding have complicated the removal of contaminated soils and suggest that an
alternate release criteria should be adopted. Based on the meeting, the NRC staff stated that
Dow needed to formally submit an alternate approach for the staff’s detailed review. The NRC
staff suggested that Dow submit a conceptual approach for review and comment. Based on an
acceptable conceptual approach, Dow would revise its decommissioning plan accordingly and
submit it for approval. Dow collected soil samples in the saturated zone to determine the
source term within the water table. Dow presented a conceptual approach to revise the DP on
March 27, 2001, at NRC Headquarters. On May 29, 2001, NRC staff requested additional
information on Dow’s conceptual approach.
To date, there has been minimal public interest in the decommissioning activities at this facility.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
Dow takes no more than 45 working days to respond to the RAI.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATES FOR CLOSURE
7/03
The estimated closure date is based on the revised DP to be submitted by Dow.
Page 16 of 60
FANSTEEL INC.
(Updated May 30, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Muskogee, OK
SMB-911
040-07580
Active; timely renewal
Leslie Fields
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The Fansteel facility is in active operation for the recovery of tantalum, niobium and scandium
from uranium and thorium ores and other metals of commercial value from process waste
residues. Fansteel has decontaminated approximately 35 acres of the Muskogee facility
designated as the “Northwest Property,” and the NRC has released this area for unrestricted
use. Fansteel has an approved NRC license dated March 25, 1997, to complete the processing
of ore residues, calcium fluoride residues, and wastewater treatment residues contained in
various site impoundments. Fansteel is not scheduled to terminate License SMB-911 until after
10 to 12 years of additional waste-residue reprocessing. On May 5, 2000, Fansteel requested
that NRC stop the review of August 1999 decommissioning plan due to investigation of other
waste disposal alternatives.
Involved Parties:
A. Fred Dohmann
Fansteel Inc.
Number Ten Tantulum Place
Muskogee, OK 74403-9296
Telephone: 918-687-6303
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
Contaminants at the site include natural uranium and decay products, and natural thorium and
decay products; metals including tantulum, niobium, chromium, antimony, tin, barium, arsenic;
and ammonia fluoride and methyl isobutyl ketone.
Soil contamination is non-uniformly distributed at the Fansteel site. Gross alpha concentrations
range from 21 to 360 pCi/g; uranium concentrations range from 6.2 to 93 pCi/g; and
thorium concentrations range from 7.2 to 51 pCi/g. The depth of contamination ranges from the
ground surface to 7.9 m (26 ft) below, with the majority concentrated within the top 0.76 m (2.5
ft) of soil.
Groundwater contamination is non-uniformly distributed at the Fansteel site. Gross alpha
concentrations ranged from 19 pCi/l to 2600 pCi/l and gross beta concentrations ranged from
59 to 1300 pCi/l. These levels of contamination were confined to the shallow groundwater
zone. Sampling and analysis of deep (bedrock) groundwater wells detected no concentrations
Page 17 of 60
above background levels. Therefore, radioactive contamination of groundwater appears to be
confined to the shallow alluvium at the top of the bedrock.
Preliminary radioactivity surveys indicate that surfaces and equipment in the following buildings
are contaminated: Chemical A, Chemical C, Thermite, Sodium Reduction, and Research &
Development Lab. These buildings are currently being used in plant operations. Levels of
contamination will be determined after operations have ceased.
The estimated volume of contaminated soil and other material for which metal recovery
operations are feasible and that must be transported off-site is 16,810 m3 (594,000 ft3).
“Offsite” is defined as any other area and may include areas currently owned by Fansteel and
are located adjacent to the Eastern Property Area. Current processing operations will reduce
the source of much of the existing soil and groundwater contamination.
On February 27, 2001, the licensee submitted a Decommissioning Funding Plan (DFP) in
accordance with its license. The DFP specifies a total cost estimate of $3,983,170 to
decommission with on-site disposal. A technical assistance request has been submitted from
the Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards (FCSS) to the Division of Waste Management
(DWM) to review this estimate. The DFP was approved on March 15, 2001.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
Fansteel will request restricted release
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE
8/20
Page 18 of 60
HERITAGE MINERALS INC.
(Updated June 14, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License status:
Project Manager:
Lakehurst, New Jersey
SMB-1541
040-08980
Renewed - 9/20/99 (possession/decommissioning only)
Craig Gordon, R I
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The Heritage Minerals Inc. (HMI) Final Status Survey Plan (FFSP) submitted to the NRC in
November 1997 provided the basis for site decommissioning activities. After RI review and
comment, and additional information submitted by the licensee, the FSSP was reviewed and
approved and an EA was issued in August 1999 to address decommissioning activities,
concluding with a FONSI. HMI has requested unrestricted release for the site, after license
termination. The licensee’s preferred disposal method is to transfer the material to an
authorized recipient in Utah, most likely Envirocare or International Uranium Corporation (IUC).
The IUC license was amended 12/00 to accept HMI material as alternate feed material.
After the license renewal in September 1999, HMI initiated decommissioning activities. Since
early CY2000, HMI has reviewed contract proposals to complete major site remediation
activities, but a contract award has not been made. A management meeting was held on March
20, 2001, to discuss the status of remediation plans. On June 7, 2001, the licensee provided a
proposed decommissioning schedule to NRC and indicated that contracts were signed to
perform site decommissioning activities and transportation and shipment of material. An
agreement was being finalized to transfer material to the IUC White Mesa uranium mill.
Routine radiation surveys and security checks of the property are performed monthly. No
potential public health and safety consequences have been identified.
Involved Parties:
Anthony J. Thompson, Esq. (Attorney for HMI)
Shaw Pittman
2300 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Tel: (202) 663-9198
John F. Lord, Site Manager
One Hovchild Plaza
4000 Route 66
Tinton Falls, NJ 07753
Pat Gardner, Supervisor
NJ Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Trenton, NJ 08625
Page 19 of 60
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
The site contains a 700 m³ (24,717 ft3) tailings pile of monazite-rich sand from the physical
separation processes used to isolate rare minerals. The licensee cleaned and decontaminated
mill buildings used during processing of feed material (sand) containing monazite, leaving
remediation activities to clean up the tailings pile. The entire site covers a large area in central
New Jersey, while the licensed material is secured within a very small area. The property is
owned by a building company that could develop the land for residential use after license
termination. Financial assurance instruments were revised in 1999.
The primary issue to resolve before license termination is waste disposal. For several years the
licensee was negotiating with a private company in Malaysia to export the material. However,
Malaysian import restrictions have delayed material transfer and the licensee has abandoned
the export strategy. Current plans are to transfer the tailings to the IUC White Mesa uranium
mill once an agreement is finalized.
NRC-licensed portions of the site are within an area of enhanced background, raising regulatory
issues with New Jersey over continued radiological exposure if NRC terminates the license.
The State believes that NRC jurisdiction should extend beyond the licensed tailings pile, to
other areas of the site, which contain exempt quantities of uranium and thorium, but do not
exceed unrestricted-use criteria. The primary State issue is that once NRC terminates the
license, the large contaminated areas of the site not subject to NRC licensing could involve
costly remediation, some of which may be the State's responsibility. In accordance with the 24
month decommissioning period designated by 10 CFR 40.42 (h)(1), HMI is expected to
complete activities by 10/01. There are no financial assurance issues associated with this site.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
HMI is able to finalize the transfer agreement with IUC.
The proposed June 7, 2001 decommissioning schedule is met.
Standard assumptions.
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE 6/02
Page 20 of 60
U.S. ARMY JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND
(Updated May 30, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Madison, Indiana
SUB-1435
04008838
Active (possession only)
Tom McLaughlin
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The site has been closed for the testing of all ordnance including depleted uranium rounds
since 1995. The monitoring of DU in soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment continues
on a bi-annual basis. The license was amended on May 8, 1996, resulting in the area south of
the firing line being released for unrestricted use. License Condition 13 was added to the
license, requiring the U.S. Army to submit a Security Plan and an Environmental Monitoring
Plan. The NRC approved these plans in July 1996.
The U.S. Army submitted a revised DP in August 1999. NRC staff reviewed the DP and
responded with a RAI in January 2000. The U.S. Army chose to revise its DP as a result of the
RAI. The revised DP will be based on 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The U.S. Army is still
preparing its final draft DP, Institutional Control Plan (ICP), and Environmental Report. A
telephone conference between the U.S. Army and NRC was held on October 18, 2000, to
discuss the status of these documents. The Army explained that its schedule has slipped and
provided a new date for submission of their revised DP. However, due to the Army’s new policy
of reviewing DU documents, this schedule will most likely be extended again. The current
estimate is for the submission of a revised DP on July 6, 2001.
A teleconference was held with the Army on January 5, 2001, to discuss data needed from the
Army in order for NRC to construct an EIS for the JPG site. The Army wanted to know what
additional information was needed for NRC to construct its own EIS besides what is already
contained in the Army’s 1995 EIS. NRC agreed to send the Army a detailed list of information
needed by January 19, 2001. It was agreed that another meeting would take place after the
Army received this list of requested information. The Army agreed to send a list of contact
persons for Fish and Wildlife, Air Force, local, State and Federal officials with knowledge of the
JPG site. The list of points of contact was sent to NRC on January 8, 2001.
On January 25, 2001, NRC sent the Army a report entitled “Listing of Potential Discussion
Areas for the Jefferson Proving Ground Environmental Report,” to assist the Army in their
development of the ER to be submitted to NRC. The Army informed NRC that it would delay
submitting its ER because of resource constraints until after it submits the revised DP.
On March 22, 2001, the Army sent a quarterly update on the status of the Army’s revised DP
submission. Due to the request by a citizens group reviewing the document (Save The Valley)
Page 21 of 60
the submission will be delayed until July 6, 2001. Also, the Army is in the process of finalizing
the contract for support of the environmental report (ER) that it needs to submit to NRC.
Involved Parties:
Joyce Kuykendall (site RSO)
U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command
AMSSB-RCB-RS
5183 BlackHawk Road
Aberdeen Proving Ground
MD 21010-5424
410-436-7118
Paul Cloud
U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command
AMSSB-OET
5183 BlackHawk Road
Aberdeen Proving Ground
MD 21010-5424
410-436-2381
Richard Hill, Co-Chair
Jefferson Proving Ground Restoration Advisory Board
P.O. Box 813
Madison, IN 47250
Kevin Herrom, State Project Manager
Federal Programs Section
Office of Land Quality
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Karen Mason-Smith, Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code SRS-5J
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site. Unexploded ordnance at the site
represents a significant non-radiological hazard. The staff has not identified any major off-site
environmental issues that will not be addressed during decommissioning of the facility. No
financial assurance issues have been identified at this time.
Page 22 of 60
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
The presence of unexploded ordnance, the associated risk, and cost for cleanup of this
material, as well as potential contamination of groundwater, are complicating remediation. NRC
staff needs to closely coordinate site actions with the State and EPA.
The licensee has signed a memorandum of agreement with the Department of the Interior (Fish
and Wildlife) and the Department of Defense (Air Force) for long-term institutional control of the
site.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
•
The U.S. Army will choose restricted release.
The U.S. Army will find an appropriate agency for long-term institutional control of the
site.
The request for hearing is approved.
Standard assumptions
In January 2000, Save the Valley, a local environmental group, requested a hearing on the DP,
citing that the DP does not adequately describe the decommissioning process and does not
provide adequate assurance for long-term control.
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE 1/06
Page 23 of 60
KAISER ALUMINUM SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (KAISER)
(Updated May 29, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Tulsa, OK
STB-472 (terminated)
040002377
Terminated
John Buckley
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The NRC added Kaiser to the SDMP on August 19, 1994. During site characterization Kaiser
identified thorium concentrations above the unrestricted-release limits on Kaiser property and in
soil located adjacent to the Kaiser property. Kaiser plans to remediate the site in two phases.
In Phase 1, Kaiser will remediate the land adjacent to the Kaiser property. Remediation of the
Kaiser property will be performed during Phase 2. On August 17, 1998, Kaiser submitted a
remediation plan for the land adjacent to the Kaiser property.
NRC staff provided comments on the Adjacent Land Remediation Plan (RP) to Kaiser on June
10, 1999, along with a RAI. Kaiser submitted responses to NRC's comments on July 8, 1999,
and August 3, 1999, and submitted a revised RP.
The staff reviewed the revised RP and concluded that is acceptable. On March 8, 2000, the
staff published a Finding of No Significant Impact in the Federal Register. The staff approved
the RP on April 4, 2000. Phase 1 remediation is complete. Kaiser is preparing the Final Status
Survey Report, which will be submitted to NRC in July 2001.
Kaiser submitted the remediation plan for the Kaiser property (Phase 2) in May 2001.
Involved Parties:
J. W. (Bill) Vinzant, Project Manager
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.
9141 Interline Ave., Suite 1A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Tel:225-231-5116
Henry Morton
Morton Associates
10421 Masters Terrace
Potomac, MD
Tel:301-983-0365
There are no immediate radiological or non-radiological hazards associated with this site.
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
Remediation of the Kaiser property is being conducted in two phases: Phase 1 - remediation of
land adjacent to the Kaiser property; Phase 2 - remediation of the Kaiser property. The
purpose of Phase 1 remediation is to get contaminated soil located outside the current Kaiser
property boundary onto Kaiser property so that it can be properly controlled and away from the
Page 24 of 60
general public. Adjacent land areas will be released for unrestricted use in accordance with the
criteria presented in the SDMP Action Plan. During Phase 2 remediation Kaiser will dispose of
thorium-contaminated soil from the Kaiser facility.
Kaiser originally expected to propose on-site disposal, with restrictions. Reduced disposal
costs at WCS and Envirocare caused Kaiser to revise its Phase 2 remediation options.
Kaiser is not currently a licensee. The site was found to be contaminated as a result of the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) terminated license review program.
There are no financial assurance issues identified at this time. To date there is minimal public
interest in the decommissioning activities at the site. The staff has not identified any major offsite environmental issues that will not be addressed during remediation of the facility.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
Since Kaiser is a non-licensee, there is no requirement to offer the public an opportunity
for a hearing.
For current planning purposes, it is assumed that Kaiser will not become a licensee.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATES FOR CLOSURE
Phase 1 closure - 11/01
Phase 2 closure - 11/06
Page 25 of 60
KISKI VALLEY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY (KVWPCA)
(Updated May 29, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Vandergrift, PA
No license
Non-licensee
Rebecca Tadesse
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The KVWPCA site is located about 40 Km (25 miles) Northeast of Pittsburgh, on the flood plain
of the Kiskiminetas River. Approximately 9000 m3 (317,790 ft3) of uranium-contaminated
sludge ash, with an average concentration of ~147 pCi/g and ~4 percent enrichment are
currently distributed in a 4,000 m2 (43,040 ft2) on-site lagoon. The contamination resulted from
the incineration and subsequent re-concentration of effluents released (within regulatory limits)
from the nearby Babcox & Wilcox facilities. In July of 1997, PADEP requested that KVWPCA
prepare and submit a closure plan. No plan has been developed; however, KVWPCA and its
contractors have characterized the contamination with extensive sampling. The NRC has used
these data, and some of its own, to develop a detailed 3-dimensional geospatial model of the
KVWPCA lagoon. NRC developed site-specific remediation guidance, for the KVWPCA facility,
that was sent to KVWPCA in November 1999. Representatives from the NRC and PADEP met
with KVWPCA for clarification of the guidance in late March 2000. As of March 2001, B&W,
BWXT and KVWPCA finalized an interim settlement agreement which provides arrangements
for the preparation of a Decommissioning Plan (DP) for the contaminated lagoon. The parties
have appointed a team to oversee development of the DP. Work toward developing the DP
began in April 2001 and is expected to be completed in November 2001. The DP will be
submitted to NRC in March 2002.
The feasibility study is based on three different options which are being evaluated by KVWPCA:
Option 1 - cap on site; Option 2 - disposal at licensed disposal facility; Option 3 - disposal at a
municipal landfill. The Gantt chart dates are estimates based on the feasibility study being
completed by the end of November 2001, and the selection of Option 3 (disposal in municipal
landfill). Option 3 would require an exemption from PADEP for KVWPCA because
Pennsylvania law requires disposal of radioactive material only in a licensed LLW disposal
facility. An Environmental Impact Statement may be required.
Involved Parties:
James Yusko
PADEP Southwest Regional Office
400 Waterfront Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 1522-4745
Tel: (412)442-4220
Robert Laskey, Engineer
Chester Engineers
600 Clubhouse Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15108
Tel: (412)269-5700
Page 26 of 60
Robert Maiers
PADEP Central Office
PADEP
PO Box 8469
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469
Theodore G. Adams, Proj. Manager
B. Koh & Associates, Inc.
11 West Main Street
Springhill, NY 14141-1012
Tel: (716)592-3431
Robert N. Kossak, Manager
Kiski Valley Water Pollution
Control Authority
1200 Pine Camp Road
Leechburg, PA 15656
Tel: (724)568-3655
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
KVWPCA is not a licensed facility and currently it is unlikely that it possesses the funds
necessary to remediate the site. For on-site remediation alternatives, DWM would apply the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 Subpart E. For off-site disposal alternatives (excluding
disposal at a licensed, LLW disposal facility), the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.2002 would
apply and any residual contamination at the KVWPCA site would have to meet the
requirements of Subpart E.
There are no off-site environmental concerns at the present time.
Three remediation options are available. Option 1 (stabilization and capping on site) would
involve disposal in a floodplain, and the NRC has never approved disposal in such a location.
In addition, as KVWPCA plans on extending its present facility over the present lagoon, it has
expressed concerns that on-site disposal is not an option. Option 2 (disposal in an LLW facility)
would require that KVWPCA pay for disposal, but KVWPCA has severe financial restrictions.
Option 3 (disposal in a municipal landfill) would require an exemption from PADEP for
KVWPCA because Pennsylvania law requires disposal of radioactive material only in a licensed
LLW disposal facility. Note that a fourth option for remediation would involve some combination
of the previously mentioned options.
There is political and public interest about remediation of the KVWPCA site.
Involved Politicians/Public Interest:
Honorable Senator Rick Santorum
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-3804
Senator Patrick J. Stapleton
The William Houston House
581 Philadelphia Street
Indiana, PA 15701
Mr. F. L. (Bud) Shannon
Chairman of the Board of Parks
Township Supervisors
Vandergrift, PA 15690
RD1 Box 645
Tel: (724) 568-3644
Page 27 of 60
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
•
•
EIS will be required to support restricted release of the site.
KVWPCA, currently not a licensee, will maintain such status and therefore not require a
license amendment.
KVWPCA will submit a DP to the NRC in March 2002.
Remediation is estimated to take 350 days (one-half of the 700 days in the generic
scenario) because contamination is limited to a spatially small area [a 4000m2 (43,040
ft2) lagoon], and it is anticipated that no buildings will require remediation.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE
12/10
Page 28 of 60
LAKE CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT (LCAAP)
(Updated June 15, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
Licensing Status:
Project Manager:
Independence, Missouri
SUC-1380
040-08767
Active/Decommissioning
Stewart Brown
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The licensee is addressing decommissioning by the submittal of separate DPs for Area 10, and
for the 549 m (600-yd) bullet-catcher and building 3A areas.
On May 1, 1998, the licensee submitted revision 5.1 of the Area 10 DP. On August 25, 1998,
the NRC approved the Area 10 DP. On August 12, 1998, the licensee submitted a DP for the
549 m (600-yd) bullet catcher and Building-3A areas. On July 13, 2000, the staff approved this
DP.
The site is listed on the NPL because of hazardous chemical contamination on site. In early
1998 NRC and EPA staffs entered into discussions on how to reduce redundant regulatory
oversight at this site. Both agencies believed that it would be reasonable for the NRC to defer
regulatory oversight of radioactive contamination remediation to the EPA, except for Area 10,
Building 3A, and the 549 m (600 yd) bullet catcher area. The staff proposed that once these
areas are remediated, the staff would remove the Lake City project from the SDMP, and when
the EPA has determined that any additional necessary radiological remediation is complete the
staff would remove this site from the license. The Commission approved a paper requesting
approval for the NRC to defer regulatory oversight of LCAAP to the EPA, except for the abovelisted areas (SECY-98-201, dated August 21, 1998) (Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM),
dated October 15, 1998). The staff fowarded this agreement to the EPA by letter dated
October 20, 1998. The licensee is addressing decommissioning by the submittal of DP for Area
10, and for the 549 m (600-yd) bullet-catcher and building 3A areas.
The Army's budgeting process will result in only a portion of the total LCAAP site being
decommissioned in any one fiscal year, because of fiscal constraints.
During the remediation of Area 10, the licensee determined that the amount of depleted
uranium (DU)-contaminated sand material was much greater than it had estimated [potentially
an increase of about 21,225 m3 (750,000 ft3)]. In addition, this sand material is also potentially
contaminated with leachable lead. The EPA, the State of Missouri, and NRC were able to
develop a framework for transferring regulatory oversight of the Area 10 remediation to EPA
once the licensee has prepared an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis and a draft Action
Memorandum. Once the licensee has produced these documents, EPA is willing to assume
regulatory oversight of Area 10 under the provisions of Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), similar to our October 20, 1998, deferral
Page 29 of 60
of regulatory oversight for the other portions of the LCAAP site to EPA (See SECY-98-201).
SECY-01-0088 of May 17, 2001 sought Commission approval to defer regulatory oversight of
Area 10 to EPA. The Commission approved the staff’s approach in an SRM dated June 13,
2001.
Involved Parties:
Rosalene Graham, Chief
Safety/Rad Waste Team
Industry Operations Command
U. S. Department of the Army
Mitchell Scherzinger, Project Manager
Division of Natural Resources
State of Missouri
Scott Marquess, Project Manager
Federal Facilities and Special Emphasis Branch
Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
No financial assurance issues have been identified at this time. The staff has not identified any
major off-site environmental issues that will not be addressed during decommissioning of the
facility. There is currently no public interest in the site.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
Standard assumptions
Commission agrees that regulatory oversight for Area 10 can be deferred to EPA and
the licensee completes remediation of both Building 3A and the 600-Yard Bullet Catcher
by July 2001.
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE
9/01
Page 30 of 60
MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL INC. (MALLINCKRODT)
(Updated May 29, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
St. Louis, MO
STB-401
40-6563
Decommissioning
John Buckley
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
Contaminants at the Mallinckrodt site are:
U-238; U-235; U-234 and progeny; Th-230; Ra-226;
Th-232; Th-228 and progeny; Ra-228; and K-40.
Decommissioning at the Mallinckrodt site will take place in two phases. Phase 1 will
decommission the buildings and equipment to the extent that whatever remains on-site will be
released for unrestricted use. Phase 2 will complete the decommissioning of the building slabs
and foundations, paved surfaces, and all subsurface materials to the extent that they can be
released for restricted use.
Mallinckrodt submitted the Phase 1 DP on November 20, 1997. NRC completed its review of
the Phase 1 DP and submitted a request for additional information (RAI) to Mallinckrodt on
February 12, 1999. Mallinckrodt responded to NRC’s RAI and submitted a revised Phase 1 DP
on March 24, 2000. The NRC reviewed Mallinckrodt’s response and revised DP, and
transmitted additional comments to Mallinckrodt on August 7, 2000. The staff met with
Mallinckrodt, in several meetings which were open to the public, to discuss NRC’s comments.
Mallinckrodt submitted a revised DP to NRC on January 29, 2001. NRC staff reviewed the
revised DP and determined that the NRC’s comments were not adequately addressed. The
staff will meet with Mallinckrodt in JUly 2001 to resolve outstanding concerns. Mallinckrodt is
expected to submit the Phase 2 DP on December 19, 2001.
Involved Parties:
Mark Puett, Manager
Environmental Affairs
Mallinckrodt Chemical, Inc.
Mallinckrodt and Second Streets
P.O. Box 5439
St. Louis, MO 63147
Tel: 314-539-1344
Henry Morton
Morton Associates
12041 Masters Terrace
Potomac, MD 20852
Tel: 301-983-0365
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site.
Page 31 of 60
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
Mallinckrodt has proposed a two-phase decommissioning for the site. In phase 1, Mallinckrodt
will remove the equipment from the buildings, and either decontaminate the buildings or
demolish the buildings. Mallinckrodt is proposing to rubbleize the demolished buildings and
either survey and release material for unrestricted use or dispose of it as radioactive waste.
Therefore, the NRC must determine how rubble should be surveyed, and what can be released.
The Mallinckrodt site has been in operation since 1867 and has produced a wide range of
products. In addition to the extraction of columbium and tantalum carried out under NRC
license STB-401, various uranium compounds were extracted under contract to the Manhattan
Engineering District and the Atomic Energy Commission (MED-AEC). Remediation of MEDAEC radiological constituents is currently being performed under the U.S. Department of
Energy’s (DOE’s) Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). USACE and Mallinckrodt currently do not agree on who
has remediation responsibility for several areas within the facility. As a result, USACE
disagrees with some portions of the Mallinckrodt Phase 1 DP. NRC will not approve the Phase
1 DP until Mallinckrodt and USACE reach agreement on remediation responsibilities for all
buildings and equipment. Mallinckrodt and USACE are expected to meet in May 2001, to
discuss remediation responsibilities for Phase 1 areas. The Phase 1 remediation schedule has
slipped, and will slip further, as a result of the USACE and Mallinckrodt discussions. Further,
since the NRC and the DOE are regulating remediation at the Mallinckrodt site, there is the
potential that two different release criteria will be used at the site, making it difficult to release
the areas remediated under NRC jurisdiction.
Public interest about the site is high, although public concern about the site is low. Mallinckrodt
has gone to great lengths to keep the public informed about decommissioning activities at the
site. There has been a Community Advisory Panel (CAP), made up of Mallinckrodt employees
and the public, in place for five years.
No financial assurance issues have been identified at this time. The staff has not identified any
major off-site environmental issues that will not be addressed during decommissioning of
the facility.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
An EIS will be required because of the large volume of contaminated material and
Mallinckrodt’s anticipated request for restricted release.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATES FOR CLOSURE
Phase 1 - 7/05
License Termination - 10/09
Page 32 of 60
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (MDNR)
(Updated May 31, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Kawkawlin, Bay County, Michigan
SUC-1581
04009015
Active (possession only)
Sam Nalluswami
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The MDNR site, located in Bay County, MI, is part of the former Hartley & Hartley Landfill, and
is currently known as the Tobico Marsh State Game Area. The site covers about 3 acres and is
contaminated with thorium. The contamination came from magnesium-thorium alloy production
at a defunct former licensee. The contaminated soil is covered with a 1.5 m (5 ft) thick clay cap
and encapsulated with 0.9 m (3 ft) thick bentonite slurry walls.
The licensee plans to submit a DP by August 2002. The remediation of the site will start after
the DP is approved. The type of release will depend on the results of the site characterization
work that began in September 1999.
Involved Parties:
Timothy Bertram, Environmental Quality Analyst
Saginaw Bay District Office
MDEQ
503 N. Euclid Avenue
Bay City, MI 48706
David W. Minnaar, Chief
Radiological Protection Section
Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division
MDEQ
P.O. Box 30630
Lansing, MI 48909-8130
James C. Forney, Director - Closed Sites
Waste Management
19200 West 8 Mile Road
Southfield, MI 48075
Steve Masciulli, Health Physicist-Industrial Hygienist
Cabrera Services, Inc.
809 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108
Page 33 of 60
Rick Dunkin, Senior Environmental Scientist
Harding Lawson Associates
39255 Country Club Drive, Suite B-25
Farmington Hills, MI 48331
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site. Chemical wastes are also present at
the site. The staff has not identified any major off-site environmental issues that will not be
addressed during decommissioning of the facility.
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
Site characterization work began in September 1999. The decision on unrestricted or restricted
release will depend on the site characterization data.
In July 1984, Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) undertook a radiological survey of the
Tobico Marsh site. The results of this survey indicated a 0.15 to 0.20 m (0.5 to 0.7 ft) thick
layer of thorium-contaminated slag near the surface. The contaminated slag appeared to be
distributed in a 10 to 20 m (33 to 66 ft) wide strip near the center of the property, extending
almost the entire north/south length of the site. The NRC and State of Michigan staffs
concluded, on the basis of the radiological survey, that the thorium contamination exceeded the
unrestricted release criteria in the SDMP Action Plan.
In 1984, the neighboring licensee undertook encapsulation measures at the site to isolate and
prevent the migration of the non-radiological hazardous wastes. Encapsulation measures
included the installation of a 1.5m-thick (5 ft) clay cap and 0.9m-thick (3 ft) bentonite slurry
walls. As a result, this site involves buried waste that is likely mixed with hazardous chemical
wastes. Remediation of the site will require coordination with the State, which regulates
hazardous chemicals. The licensee concluded that the mixture of non-radiological hazardous
and radioactive waste would make the wastes unacceptable at a chemical or radioactive waste
disposal site (other than an authorized mixed-waste disposal facility).
Currently, the State of Michigan does not want the clay cap over the wastes to be removed,
because of the non-radiological hazards of the site. However, it is uncertain whether the site
can be sufficiently characterized and decommissioned without removal of parts of the cap. No
financial assurance issues have been identified at this time. There is minimal, if any, public
interest, to date. Public interest is expected to continue to be minimal if the clay cap is not
removed and waste removal is kept to a minimum.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
C
Standard assumptions for unrestricted release
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE 7/08
Page 34 of 60
MOLYCORP INC.
(Updated May 30, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Washington, PA
SMB-1393
040-08778
Timely renewal
Tom McLaughlin
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
This site is located 56.3 Km (35 mi) southwest of the City of Pittsburgh in Canton Township, PA
less than 0.8 Km (0.5 mi) southwest of the City of Washington, PA. Molycorp produced a
ferrocolumbium alloy from an ore that contained natural thorium. The operation resulted in the
production of thorium-bearing slag that was used as fill over portions of the site and stored in an
above-ground, vegetated slag pile 7641 m3 (10,000 yd3). Thorium is the primary contaminant.
However, the ore may have contained small amounts of uranium. Average thorium
concentrations over most of the site are between 100 and 200 pCi/g. In some locations, the
contamination extends down to 3 m (10 ft) in the subsurface soil. The average concentration of
thorium in the slag pile is 1200 pCi/g. Estimates of total waste volumes range from 45,846 114,615 m3 (60,000 - 150,000 yd3).
Molycorp submitted its original DP in July 1995. The DP proposed on-site storage, followed by
permanent disposal of the waste, from both the Washington and York sites, in an impoundment
on the Washington site. Because on-site disposal would have exceeded the SDMP criteria
(criteria designated for use before the LTR), the NRC staff requested that Molycorp submit an
environmental report (ER) as part of the DP. The licensee supplemented the 1995 DP with an
ER in April 1997.
Because the July 1995 DP was determined not to conform to the interim SDMP criteria, and as
such, could not be grandfathered under the provisions of the LTR, an NRC letter dated
February 16, 1999, directed Molycorp to revise its DP to meet the requirements of the LTR.
After consultation with NRC staff, the licensee stated its intention to submit the DP in two parts.
Part I of the DP would address cleanup of the contaminated portion of the site and comply with
the SDMP Action Plan criteria. Part II would address disposal of material from York and
Washington in an impoundment on the Washington site and would comply with the LTR. NRC
staff agreed to this approach and a revised DP (Part I) was submitted on June 30, 1999.
NRC staff completed an acceptance review of the Molycorp Washington DP Part I for
decommissioning the Washington site and corresponding amendment request on October 19,
1999. An opportunity for a hearing on the amendment request was published in the Federal
Register on November 16, 1999. In response to the hearing notice, Canton Township
submitted a request for hearing on the Part I DP on December 13, 1999. The Atomic Safety
and Licensing Appeal Board Panel (ASLBP), at the NRC staff’s request, delayed consideration
of the hearing request until the staff had completed its environmental assessment and safety
Page 35 of 60
evaluation report for the Part I DP decommissioning amendment request. The staff approved
the Part I DP on August 8, 2000. On September 19, 2000, the Presiding Officer ruled that
Canton Township had standing on its request for a hearing on the DP Part I for the Washington
site. After Molycorp’s withdrawl of its request for an amendment for construction of an onsite
disposal cell, the Canton Township subsequently withdrew its request for a hearing.
Molycoprp submitted Part II of its DP on July 14, 2000. Part II of the DP consisted of
Molycorp’s plans to dispose of the waste, generated by the Part I remediation, in an on site
disposal cell and terminate the license under the restricted release provisions of the LTR. Staff
completed an acceptance review on August 16, 2000, and initiated the technical review. In a
letter dated January 3, 2001, Molycorp withdrew its amendment request for approval of the
Part II DP. While Molycorp will continue to decommission the Washington facility under its
previously approved Part I DP, it will now dispose of the material off site and will ultimately seek
a unrestricted release of the site. On February 26, 2001, Molycorp informed NRC that it
finished removal of all above ground waste, including the slag pile, and shipped the material to
the Envirocare facility in Clive, Utah.
On March 19, 2001, Molycorp submitted a license amendment request for an alternate
decommissioning schedule. The request was submitted with no text to support the
approximately 5 year time frame for decommissioning. NRC rejected the proposed schedule on
March 28, 2001. An open meeting was held at NRC to discuss Molycorp’s proposed alternate
decommissioning schedule on April 25, 2001. As a result of the meeting, Molycorp agreed to
provide additional justification for the proposed schedule.
ON March 20, 2001, DWM participated in a public meeting hosted by the Agency for Toxic
Substance & Disease Registry (ATSDR). The purpose of the meeting was to provide the public
an opportunity to ask questions concerning the ATSDR’s health risk assessment for the
Molycorp, Washington, PA site. The study had been conducted at the request of a concerned
citizen. The ATSDR found:
•
•
•
•
•
Radiation levels, both on and off site, are not likely to cause harmful health effects;
The estimated levels of radiation released as a result of licensed operations were not
high enough to be harmful;
Contamination of the buried municipal water line on the Molycorp site is not likely;
ATSDR could not identify an association between health problems, including cancer,
and the radiological contamination at the site; and
The site does not pose a public health threat from exposure to radiation caused by
coming near the site or accidently breathing or eating dust from the property.
The ATSDR is recommending that it review environmental monitoring data collected during
cleanup activities to evaluate for public health impacts. Following the close of the public
comment period for this study on April 30, 2001, ATSDR release its final version of the study.
Molycorp submitted revised financial assurance instruments to NRC on May 31, 2001.
Page 36 of 60
Involved Parties:
George W Dawes, Supervisor
Laboratory & Environmental Eng
Molycorp, Inc.
300 Caldwell Ave
Washington, PA 15301
Roy Woods
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
PADEP
400 Waterfront Dr
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
David Fauver, Consultant
Radiological Services, Inc.
New London, CT
240-694-0167
William Belanger
U.S. EPA Region 3
Mail Code 3AP23
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-2082
[email protected]
Robert Maiers, P.E.
Chief, Decommissioning Section
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
Rachel Carson State Office Building
P.O. Box 8469
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469
717-783-8979
717-783-8965 (FAX)
Canton Township Supervisors
Township Secretary
96 North Main Street
Washington, PA 15301
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site.
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
Public concern in the Canton Township, City of Washington area, is high. Congressional
interest also mirrors that found in the local communities. The NRC has conducted two local
public meetings to keep interested parties informed, the second of which was attended by over
300 people.
The State will need to make a finding on whether metals from the ore that remain on the site
are of sufficient quantity and concentration to categorize the waste as a mixed waste. If the
waste is determined to be a mixed waste, special mixed-waste disposal requirements would
be required.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is expected to apply for Agreement State status and may
become the regulatory authority for this site before to the completion of decommissioning.
The licensee has submitted a “parent company guarantee” in the amount of $26.3 million as
financial assurance for decommissioning the Washington site. At this time the parent company
guarantee is being reviewed and no problems are anticipated with the instrument.
Page 37 of 60
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE
To be determined after NRC receives and
approves the updated schedule.
Page 38 of 60
MOLYCORP INC.
(Updated July 16, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
York, PA
SMB-1408
04008794
Timely renewal
Tom McLaughlin
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The site is located in the City of York, Pennsylvania, and occupies approximately 6 acres of
land. Molycorp processed lanthanide ores and concentrates containing low quantities of
thorium and uranium. Although thorium is the primary contaminant, small amounts of uranium
may be present. Molycorp submitted its original decommissioning plan (DP) in August of 1995,
proposing to clean-up the site to meet the SDMP Action Plan criteria for unrestricted use (10
pCi/g thorium and natural uranium) with storage of the waste generated, in a temporary storage
cell on the Washington site, until approval was granted for disposal of the waste in an
impoundment on the Washington site. The licensee provided a supplement to the DP on June
30, 1999. The DP was approved for unrestricted release of the York site on June 6, 2000. A
significant portion of the site was remediated before approval of the DP.
On August 1, 2000, Molycorp withdrew its request to amend its Washington, PA Source
Material license to allow storage of York decommissioning soil on the Washington site. NRC
responded on August 3, 2000, granting the request and ceasing all activities related to the to
the amendment request. The licensee is currently preparing its final radiological site surveys.
NRC Region 1 will conduct in-process inspections while the licensee is performing these
surveys.
On January 29, 2001, Molycorp submitted a license amendment request to plug and abandon
ground water monitoring wells at this site. Several of these wells are designated in the license
and samples are required to be drawn from these designated wells biannually. Molycorp has
asserted that this action is needed to begin cleanup activities in the areas surrounding the
wells. Molycorp has committed to install new wells in the same locations and screened at the
same intervals as the existing wells designated in the license. Prior to installing the new wells,
Molycorp has committed to confer with both NRC and the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection to ensure that the new well locations are satisfactory. Molycorp
expects to install the new wells in August 2001 and to complete biannual sampling for the year
2001 by sampling the new wells twice before year end.
All building structures have been taken down along with some of the concrete pads under the
buildings. The railroad spur onto the site has been constructed and the licensee will begin to
ship contaminated material and soil off site. Buiilding material that was surveyed and released
as clean is now being shipped off site to a landfill.
Page 39 of 60
Involved Parties:
George W Dawes, Supervisor
Laboratory & Environmental Eng.
Molycorp, Inc.
300 Caldwell Ave
Washington, PA 15301
724-222-5605 ext. 517
[email protected]
James Kopenhaver
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
PADEP Southcentral Regional Office
909 Elmerton Ave.
Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200
717-705-4891
[email protected]
Robert Maiers, P.E.
Chief, Decommissioning Section
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
Rachel Carson State Office Building
P.O. Box 8469
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469
717-783-8979
717-783-8965 (FAX)
[email protected]
William Belanger
U.S. EPA Region 3
Mail Code 3AP23
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-2082
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site.
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
Limited groundwater sampling data indicates very low concentrations (30 pCi/l of uranium) in
the groundwater in the area of the York facility. The licensee is providing additional uranium
groundwater sampling data during cleanup activities.
Molycorp has submitted has submitted a parent company guarantee for $3,414,000.00, as
assurance for decommissioning the site. This amount is being reviewed to determine whether it
is sufficient for carrying out the proposed alternative.
Public interest appears minimal at the present time. The licensee held a public meeting to
explain the decommissioning activities that will take place. One member of the public inquired
about and was provided the site characterization report for the York facility.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE
10/02
Page 40 of 60
PERMAGRAIN PRODUCTS INC. (PPI)
(Updated June 18, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.
Docket No.
License Status:
Project Manager:
Karthaus, PA
37-17860-02
030-29288
Active
Steve Shaffer, RI
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
Strontium (Sr)-90 is the main contaminant at the site. The licensee started to decommission
the site on July 13, 1998, with excavation of the buried tank farm. During decontamination of
the waste water treatment building, soil contamination was discovered under the building. Soil
excavation activities are in progress. An incident occurred on October 12, 1998, from
contractor work, in a hot cell that released between 10-100 mCi of Sr-90. The release was
contained in the building, and there was no release to the environment. One worker was found
to have internal deposition resulting in an estimated dose of approximately 760 millirem. Four
individuals showed skin contamination as a result of the event. The NRC approved the
Permagrain Restart Plan in December 1998, and the project was restarted immediately.
Because of the extremely high levels of contamination associated with the event, in Cell 4, the
licensee has decided to decommission to unrestricted use limits. This will involve building a
new irradiator for PPI. Decommissioning work at the site will continue in the interim. However,
no work will be done on Cell 4 until PPI operations have been moved.
Involved Parties:
A. E. Witt, President
Permagrain Products, Inc.
4789 West Chester Pike
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Tel: 610-353-8801
William Kirk
Bureau of Radiation Protection
Rachel Carson State Office Building
P.O. Box 8469
Harrisburg, PA 17105
Tel: 717-787-2480
Page 41 of 60
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
Clean-up of the soil contamination associated with the event is the primary technical issue. The
licensee has not made any unique proposals at this time. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
is responsible for financing remediation activities.
The local emergency response officials and a local State representative have shown interest in
the activities at the site. The licensee has held tours and kept interested parties informed of
progress at the site. Public interest to date has come from:
Camille George
State house of Representatives
Room 388
Main Capital Building
House Box 202020
Harrisburg, PA
Tel: 717-787-7316
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
The licensee is grandfathered under Option 1 of the BTP.
The change to greenfielding the entire site will not jeopardize the grandfathered status.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE
7/03
Page 42 of 60
SAFETY LIGHT CORPORATION (SLC)
(Updated June 15, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Bloomsburg, PA
37-00030-02
030-05980
Active; Renewed December 1999
Marie Miller, RI
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
Radioactive contamination of site buildings, soil, and groundwater was identified as a result of
previous manufacturing operations of self-illuminating watch and instrument dials and related
activities involving Ra-226, Cs-137, Sr-90, and Am-241.
The current license expires at the end of 2004. The NRC staff recommended and the
Commission approved the renewal in December 1999, despite the lack of sufficient financial
assurance to cover decommissioning costs. The renewal allowed SLC to continue to remove
radioactive material from two underground silos that was initiated in October 1999. The
remediation of the underground silos has taken considerably longer than originally projected,
because SLC can not dispose of the material without further sorting and characterization. SLC
projects that preparing the packages for disposal and shipment will use the remaining
decommissioning funds. This issue is under Staff review.
SLC submitted a revised Decommissioning Cost Estimate(DCE) and Decommissioning Plan
(DP) in October 2000, as required by a condition of the license renewal. The Decommissioning
Plan recommends a sequence of remediation tasks based on amount of radiological
contamination and its impact on the environment. The revised DCE and DP are under Staff
review to determine the reasonableness of the cost estimate, now estimated to be about 29
million dollars for both licenses. Nevertheless, the staff believes that no significant remediation
work can be performed at the site, because of limited funding.
Involved Parties:
Safety Light Corporation
Larry Harmon, Plant Manager
4150-A Old Berwick Road
Bloomsburg, PA 17815
Tel: 570-784-4344
Safety Light Corporation
Norman Fritz, Radiation Safety Officer
4150-A Old Berwick Road
Bloomsburg, PA 17815
Tel: 570-784-4344
Page 43 of 60
Bob Maiers
Bureau of Radiation Protection
PADEP
P.O. Box 8469
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469
Tel: 717-783-8979
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
SLC’s inability to provide sufficient financial assurance for remediation activities is the primary
regulatory issue. At this time, the licensee has available approximately $1.5 million for site
remediation.
Contamination of large amounts of soil (Ra-226 concentrations up to 670 pCi/g and Cs-137
concentrations up to 630 pCi/g) is the principal radiological hazard at the site. Building and
groundwater contamination also needs to be addressed by SLC as part of decommissioning.
To date, public interest in the decommissioning activities at the site is minimal. PADEP has
been more involved with the site since the NRC licenses were renewed. A meeting with
PADEP to review near and long term regulatory actions is scheduled for June 25, 2001. They
have also conducted several activities associated with their regulatory responsibilities including,
storage of the mixed waste and radium waste removed from the underground silos, and they
have conducted groundwater and surface water assessments. A final report is expected in
June 2001. The staff has not identified any major off-site environmental issues that will not be
addressed during decommissioning of the site.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
After removal of contaminated material from the silos, the length of time to complete
subsequent remediation tasks cannot be determined.
SLC will continue to request unrestricted release.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATES FOR CLOSURE
License Termination - 12/04
Off SDMP - Indefinite
Page 44 of 60
SCA SERVICES (SCA)
(Updated May 31, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Kawkawlin, Bay County, Michigan
SUC-1565
04009022
Active (possession only)
Sam Nalluswami
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The SCA Services site, located in Bay County, MI, is part of the former Hartley & Hartley
Landfill, and covers about 235 acres. Part of the site is contaminated with thorium that came
from magnesium-thorium alloy production at a defunct former licensee. The contaminated soil
is covered with a clay cap and encapsulated with slurry walls.
The licensee completed site characterization in 1996. The buried thorium wastes were not
located. There are hazardous wastes present at the site and the site is being regulated under
the State Superfund law. The licensee is reviewing the possibility of terminating the license
under restricted release.
The licensee plans to submit a DP by August 1, 2003. The licensee is investigating restrictedrelease options.
Involved Parties:
Timothy Bertram, Environmental Quality Analyst
Saginaw Bay District Office
MDEQ
503 N. Euclid Avenue
Bay City, MI 48706
David W. Minnaar, Chief
Radiological Protection Section
Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division
MDEQ
P.O. Box 30630
Lansing, MI 48909-8130
Denise S. Gruben, Project Manager
Office of Legal Services
MDNR
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
Page 45 of 60
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site. There are hazardous wastes present
at the site and therefore the site is also being regulated under the State's Superfund law. The
staff has not identified any major off-site environmental issues that will not be addressed during
decommissioning of the facility.
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
The site characterization completed in 1996 could not locate the buried thorium wastes. ORAU
had undertaken a radiological survey of the site in July 1984. The NRC and State of Michigan
staffs concluded, on the basis of the radiological survey, that the thorium contamination
exceeded the unrestricted release criteria in the SDMP Action Plan. The licensee is likely to
use the contamination level from this survey as the radiological contamination level at the site
because the contamination is not likely to have migrated off-site and the licensee would not
have to perform additional site characterization. SCA is licensed to possess 40 metric tons of
thorium and 5 metric tons of uranium.
After the radiological survey, the licensee undertook cap repair measures at the site to isolate
and prevent the migration of the non-radiological hazardous wastes. As a result, this site
involves buried waste that is likely mixed with hazardous chemical wastes. Remediation of the
site will require coordination with the State, which regulates hazardous chemicals. The licensee
also concluded that the mixture of non-radiological hazardous and radioactive waste would
make the wastes unacceptable at a chemical or radioactive waste disposal site (other than an
authorized mixed-waste disposal facility) and agreed to implement a monitoring program and to
place a restriction on the deed prohibiting intrusion. Currently, the State of Michigan does not
want the clay cap over the wastes to be removed, because of the non-radiological hazards at
the site. There is minimal, if any, public interest to date. Public interest is expected to remain
minimal if the clay cap is not removed.
If the licensee selects restricted release for the site, then it will need to find a long-term
custodian. The neighboring MDNR site indicated that it is not willing to provide institutional
control for this site. No financial assurance issues have been identified to date.
The probability for a hearing is low if the licensee satisfies the unrestricted release criteria with
minimal disturbance to the clay cap. The potential for a hearing increases if the licensee has to
remediate the site, involving removal of the clay cap. An EIS will be needed if the restrictedrelease option is selected. The schedule for submitting a DP is being driven by State
requirements associated with its Superfund law.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
SCA Services will choose restricted release.
SCA Services will find an appropriate agency for long-term institutional control of the
site.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE 2/11
Page 46 of 60
SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION (SFC)
(Updated May 25, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Gore, OK
SUB-1010
04008027
Expired (possession only)
Jim Shepherd
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
There is surface, subsurface, and groundwater contamination from uranium and thorium
throughout the site, and uranium, thorium, and radium in raffinate sludge ponds. There is also
chemical contamination of arsenic, molybdenum, and copper in the soils, which being
addressed under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Administrative Order on
Consent (AOC) issued by the EPA Region 6.
The contamination was generated during the processing of uranium oxide (yellowcake) to
uranium hexafluoride, from 1970 through 1992, and treatment of the process raffinate. Soil
contamination levels range from about 5 ?Ci/g to more than 500 ?Ci/g of (primarily) uranium
and thorium. Uranium concentration in the groundwater ranges from ~200 - 30,000 ?Ci/l.
Radium concentration in the raffinate sludges are about 300 - 350 ?Ci/g. There is also process
system waste comprising piping, vessels, and building materials contaminated with uranium in
various chemical forms such yellowcake, uranyl nitrate, and uranium hexafluoride. The total
radiological and hazardous waste volume is estimated to be 141,600 - 311,520 m3 (5 - 11
million ft3).
SFC submitted a DP for NRC review and approval, on March 26, 1999. The NRC issued a
notice of the receipt of the DP and provided an opportunity for a hearing in the Federal
Register on June 9, 1999. The State of Oklahoma petitioned for a hearing. On December 22,
1999, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) issued a ruling granting a hearing to the
State. On January 3, 2000, SFC appealed the ASLB ruling to the Commission. Issues related
to the hearing are discussed below.
The DP proposes restricted release of the site after placing all radiological and chemical
contamination in an on-site, above-grade disposal cell. The NRC determined that an EIS was
required before approval of the DP. EIS development was initiated in May 2000.
By letter dated January 5, 2001, SFC requested that NRC review the concept that the majority
of waste at the facility should be classified as byproduct material, as defined in Atomic Energy
Act paragraph 11(e)(2). If NRC agrees, control of the site would be transferred to Department
of Energy under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act on completion of
decommissioning. NRC discussed this issue with DOE in April 2001. DOE will abide by NRC
opinion on the SFC material. NRC staff is developing a position on this issue and will consult
with the Commission before responding to SFC.
Page 47 of 60
During February 21-23, 2001, staff visited the site and discussed the need for hydrological and
geological data to support dose modeling for license termination. SFC has developed a plan to
acquire additional data by drilling and geotechnical work. Following data collection, SFC will
revise the transport and dose analyses.
On February 27, 2001, NRC issued a request for additional information (RAI) to SFC on items
related to the EIS. SFC provided an interim response to the RAI in April 2001. Additional
information is expected in July 2001.
The second draft of the preliminary EIS was received from the contractor in April 2001.
Additional dose modeling work will be delayed until additional information is received from SFC.
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site.
Involved Parties:
Sequoyah Fuels Corp.
John Ellis, President
Craig Harlin, Director of Regulatory Affairs
P.O. Box 610,
Gore, Oklahoma 74435
Tel: 918-489-2291
Stephen L Jantzen, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Protection Unit
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd. Suite 112
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
Tel: 405-521-3921
Pat Gwin
Associate Director for Environmental Health, Cherokee Nation
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, Oklahoma 74464
Tel: 918-456-0671 x2704
Michael Hebert, PE
Enforcement Officer, EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Tel: (214) 665-8315
Michael Broderick
ODEQ, Waste Management Division
707 N. Robinson
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102-6087
Tel: 405-702-5157
Page 48 of 60
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
In its hearing request, the State of Oklahoma indicated it was concerned that leaving the
contamination in place would create a hazard to the health of residents of the State of
Oklahoma, decrease property values in the area, and destroy the scenic value of adjacent
venues. This request has been granted by the ASLB. By agreement among all parties, the
hearing is being held in abeyance pending completion of the EIS, currently scheduled for 2002.
Staff submits quarterly status reports to ASLB.
SFC proposes "monitored natural attenuation" as the remediation alternative for groundwater.
This is an EPA approach for remediation of chemical contamination that requires, among other
things, that the plume be accurately monitored and that mass reduction be demonstrated by
means other than dilution. SFC has not demonstrated the requisite monitoring and mass
reduction. SFC is collecting additional groundwater movement and contaminant transport data.
SFC plans to stabilize all other material and place it in an on-site cell inside a restricted area.
Areas outside the proposed institutional control boundary of about 100 acres (40 ha) -- will be
released for unrestricted use under criteria in the LTR. SFC proposed a resident-farmer
scenario, excluding groundwater, with no penetration of the disposal cell.
The concentration of radium, the radiological precursor to radon, in the sludges at the SFC
does not meet the unrestricted release criteria of 10 CFR 20 Subpart E. The Statements of
Consideration for the License Termination Rule state that in this case, restricted use scenarios
should be considered, and that the EPA criteria for buildings to minimize the concentration of
radon in basements is an appropriate institutional control. SFC has not calculated a dose from
radon in buildings; all existing buildings will be demolished during site remediation.
SFC has not identified a competent party to maintain institutional control over the site following
license termination, as required by 10 CFR 20.1403. SFC has proposed to the staff the
possibility of converting the license from a source material license to an 11.e(2) byproduct
material license and decommissioning in accordance with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act, and have Department of Energy assume control under Title II of the Act. In
addition to any issues related to conversion of the license, SFC estimates that about 23% of the
identified radioactive waste at the site would not qualify as 11(e)(2) in any case, and would
need other authorization for disposal. DOE has stated it will abide by NRC opinion on this
matter.
In addition to Oklahoma’s hearing, there is a high level of interest by local environmental groups
and local citizens, many of whom are opposed to on-site disposal and license termination.
These include:
Nuclear Risk Management for Native Communities (NRMNC)
Center for Technology, Environment and Development
Clark University
Dan Handy, Project Assistant
950 Main St.
Worcester, MA 01610-1477
Tel: 508-751-4615
Page 49 of 60
Environment As Related To Health (EARTH)
JoKay Dowell, NRMNC Site Manager
PO Box 73
Park Hill, OK 74451
Tel: 918-458-5502
Oklahoma Toxics Campaign
Mr. Earl Hatley
P.O. Box 74
Guthrie, OK 73044
Local property owner
Mr. Ed Henshaw
Route 1, Box 76
Vian, OK 74962
Tel: 918 489 5784
Total financial assurance is comprised of three parts: (1) a certificate of deposit for $750,000 to
meet the requirements of the formula value identified in the NRC financial assurance rule;
(2) $5.4 million from a “parent company guarantee” that resulted from settlement of an NRC
Order; and (3) a written promise, from the licensee, to devote its resources to decommissioning
activities, also as settlement of the Order. The licensee’s estimate to decommission the site is
about $87 million, of which approximately $22 million is direct remediation cost, and $2 million
to a fund for long-term site control and monitoring.
EPA Region 6 has expressed concern that a calculated dose of 25 mrem/yr may result in
exceeding EPA risk limits of 10 e-04 probability of additional induced cancers when combined
with the risk from the hazardous chemical materials that will also be disposed of in the on-site
cell.
There is potential competition for the limited funds available for decommissioning the site
between NRC and the EPA, who has issued an Administrative Order on Consent under the
RCRA. There is close coordination between the agencies on this issue.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
•
•
SFC’s proposal for restricted-release is valid, based on licensee plans and limited
financial resources.
The outcome of the hearing will not materially affect the decommissioning plan.
SFC will take 3 years to perform decommissioning after NRC approval.
SFC and the first lien holder (Kerr-McGee) will reach timely agreement on legally
enforceable institutional controls required for license termination.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE 4/09
Page 50 of 60
SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION (SHIELDALLOY)
(Updated May 29, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
Licensee Status:
Project Manager:
Newfield, NJ
SMB-1507
04007102
Active
Julie Olivier
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
Shieldalloy operates a manufacturing facility located in Newfield, N.J. This facility manufactures
or has manufactured specialty steel and super alloy additives, primary aluminum master alloys,
metal carbides, powdered metals, and optical surfacing products. One of the raw materials
used in its manufacturing processes is classified as “source material” under 10 CFR Part 40.
This material is called pyrochlore, a concentrated niobium ore containing greater than 0.05
percent natural uranium and natural thorium. Shieldalloy currently holds NRC License No.
SMB-743 which allows possession, use, storage, transfer, and disposal of source material
ancillary to metallurgical operations.
During the manufacturing process, the facility generates slag, and baghouse dust. Currently,
there is approximately 18,000 m3 (635,580 ft3) of slag and approximately 15,000 m3 (529,650
ft3) of baghouse dust contaminated with natural uranium, thorium, and daughters stored on-site.
Shieldalloy is actively seeking a buyer for both the slag, which can be used as a fluidizer by
steel manufacturers, and for the baghouse dust, which can be substituted for lime in the
production of cement. If suitable buyers are found, and the NRC approves of the sale, the
volume of waste to be disposed of at the time of decommissioning will be greatly reduced.
SMC submitted a revised DFP dated April 20, 2000, which assumes on-site stabilization of the
slag pile and baghouse dust, similar to the proposal approved for the Shieldalloy Cambridge,
Ohio site. SMC is no longer active, and has until September, 2001 to notify the NRC if they
plan to resume operations. They have informally told the NRC that they do not plan to resume
operations and will submit a site DP mid-year 2002.
Involved Parties:
Mr. David R. Smith, Radiation Safety Officer
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation
P.O. Box 768
Newfield, New Jersey 08344
Jill Lipoti, PhD., Assistant Director
for Radiation Protection Programs
Division of Environmental Safety
Health and Analytical Program
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 415
Trenton, NJ 08625-0415
Page 51 of 60
Mark Winslow, Coordinator
Radiation Health & Safety Program
Radiation and Indoor Air Branch
U.S. EPA, R11
290 Broadway, 28th Floor
2DEPP-RIAB
New York, NY 10007-1866
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
In the past, Shieldalloy has found it difficult to sell the slag material. Several attempts to export
the material have failed. Shieldalloy intends to sell the baghouse dust to a local cement
manufacturer. Regardless of whether the sales occur, Shieldalloy has proposed, in its DFP to
dispose of these materials on-site in an engineered cell. The technical issues associated with
the design and institutional controls of the cell will be the main focus of the DP review, once the
plan is submitted.
The site is also on the NPL, because of past operations involving chromium-contaminated onsite groundwater. Remediation of the groundwater is currently taking place. Public interest in
the decommissioning of this site is minimal.
Because of past bankruptcy, Shieldalloy had less than adequate financial assurance. The
Shieldalloy license contained a condition that required the site to update its DFP and provide
adequate financial assurance for the decommissioning of the site. Shieldalloy has submitted a
revised plan, dated April 20, 2000, which provides $2.5 million of funding, based on capping of
the waste slag pile in place. The staff is reviewing the adequacy of Shieldalloy’s plan.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
If the slag and baghouse dust are removed from the site, there would only be small
amount of residual radioactivity in some buildings and soils.
Shieldalloy will elect to begin decommissioning in 2002.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE
9/10
Page 52 of 60
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
(Updated May 29, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License Nos.:
Docket Nos.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Lawrenceburg, TN
SNM-724
SMB-720
070-00784
040-07044
Previously Terminated
Rebecca Tadesse
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
The contaminant at the Union Carbide site is enriched uranium
A Decommissioning Plan (DP) was submitted by UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. (UCAR) on
August 19, 1998. As a result of issues involving jurisdiction, the NRC staff review of the DP
was delayed until July 1999. The NRC completed its review of the DP and discussed the
results of its review with UCAR in August and December 1999. The DP proposes unrestricted
release of the site, based on the 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E release criteria for soil
contamination and the “Guideline for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to
Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special
Nuclear material,” for buildings and structures. NRC approved the UCAR DP in two phases.
Phase 1 (building and structures) was approved in July 2000, and Phase 2 (soils) was approved
in December 2000.
Involved parties:
Juanita Bursley, Manager
Corporate Environmental Manager
UCAR
12900 Snow Road
Parma, OH 44130
Tel: 216-676-2000
Phil Brandt
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
1205 Banner Hill Road
Erwin, TN 37650
Tel: 423-743-9141
Mr. L. Edward Nannie, Director
Tennessee Dept. of Environment and Conservation
Division of Radiological Health
L&C Annex, Third Floor
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243-1532
Tel: 615-532-0364
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site.
Page 53 of 60
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
The former Union Carbide facility licenses, which authorized the production of graphite-coated
fuel particles, were terminated in June 1974. As stated in the DP, UCAR proposes to further
investigate and remediate contamination identified in three buildings, the outdoor areas
surrounding the buildings, and an incinerator pad and the surrounding soil. The UCAR DP was
approved in two phases. Remediation of the UCAR facility will be conducted in two phases:
Phase 1, decommissioning activities associated with buildings; Phase 2, decommissioning
activities associated with soil. A two-phase approach is being used because UCAR is
proposing to use the cleanup criteria found in the 1993 “Guideline for Decontamination of
Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for
Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear material” for buildings and structures. UCAR is “grand
fathered,” and thus able to use these criteria for buildings.
No financial assurance issues have been identified to date. Public interest about
decommissioning activities at the site is minimal. The staff has not identified any major off-site
environmental issues that will not be addressed during decommissioning of the facility.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
UCAR’s proposed soil-release guideline is valid.
UCAR will not become a licensee.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE
1/05
Page 54 of 60
WESTINGHOUSE WALTZ MILL
(Updated June 18, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Madison, PA
SNM-770
070-00698
Active, (also at this site is an inactive test reactor TR-2, which is being
decommissioned by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Mark Roberts, RI
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
There is contamination present in outdoor areas as a result of past licensed operations and
from cleanup activities from a test reactor accident in 1960. Areas include buried liquid-waste
basin liners; contaminated concrete pads and adjacent contaminated soil from waste
segregation and laundry activities; and an in-ground concrete liquid-retention basin. An inactive
drain line, with multiple manholes, is also a significant source of contamination. Principal
contaminants include mixed fission products (primarily Sr-90 and Cs-137) with significantly
lesser concentrations of transuranic radionuclides. Groundwater wells on site also show
elevated activity, primarily Sr-90. Exterior surface structures, including one large above-ground
tank, four smaller above-ground tanks, a small building, and a trailer have been removed and
shipped for processing and eventual disposal. Interior areas, including hot cells and related
equipment, are being remediated, using procedures developed under the licensee’s broad
license.
Westinghouse submitted an RP (not a DP), in April 1997, for review and approval. The NRC
noticed the receipt of the RP in the Federal Register and received no comments. The NRC has
approved portions of the plan, notably the removal of contaminated above-ground structures
and decontamination of interior retired facilities. Excavation and disposal of contaminated soil
and below-ground structures (concrete pads) were not approved. Primarily because of the
presence of the Sr-90 contamination in the groundwater, the licensee resubmitted the soil
excavation and groundwater treatment portion of the RP in August 1999. The NRC approved
the soil-remediation plan in January 2000. The licensee has removed contaminated soil from
the areas of the buried basins and is remediating the liquid waste retention basin.
Involved Parties:
A. Joseph Nardi, Supervisory Engineer
Westinghouse Electric Company
Environment, Health and Safety
P.O. Box 355
Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355
Tel: 412 374-4652
Wayne Vogel, Radiation Safety Officer
Westinghouse Electric Company
Waltz Mill Site
P.O. Box 158
Madison, PA 15663-0158
Tel: 724 722-5924
Page 55 of 60
Richard K. Smith
Director, Environmental Remediation
Viacom Corporation
11 Stanwix Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: 412 642-3285
Robert Maiers
Bureau of Radiation Protection
Department of Environmental Protection
Rachel Carson State Office Building
P.O. Box 8469
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469
Tel: 717 783-8979
There are no immediate radiological hazards at the site. The licensee intends to continue
licensed activities (principally testing, maintenance, and calibration of major equipment for
nuclear power reactor services), at the site, for the foreseeable future.
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
The licensee requested an alternate schedule for completion of the remediation. Because the
licensee intends to maintain an active license at the site for at least the next 25 years, the
remediation plan includes considering radioactive decay and further pump-and-treat for
groundwater contamination, in addition to the excavation and disposal of contaminated soil.
The licensee provided an acceptable rationale for approving the alternate schedule, and the
schedule was approved in January 2000.
Removal of the site from the SDMP list is a question and concern of the licensee. Region I staff
intend to submit a Commission Paper requesting removal of the site from the SDMP list, after
successful implementation of the RP and licensee demonstration and NRC confirmation that
DCGL targets have been met.
Public interest in the decommissioning activities at the site is minimal at this time. The staff has
not identified any financial assurance issues associated with decommissioning.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
•
The characterization data are representative of the site conditions.
Once groundwater and soil-contamination issues have been addressed, the site can be
removed from the SDMP list.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE 8/02
Page 56 of 60
WATERTOWN GSA
(Updated June 14, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status:
Project Manager:
Watertown, MA
none
none
in abeyance
Craig Gordon, RI
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
Residual material on the property resulted from licensed activities at the Watertown Arsenal.
The site is currently unlicensed. The General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for
performing the required site remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater in areas
previously used by the Army for burning licensable quantities of uranium scrap and storage of
radioactive waste. The New England District (NED) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), under agreement with GSA, assumed management of site decommissioning
activities in 1992. USACE submitted an aggressive schedule to NRC relating to additional
characterization, remediation, and decommissioning for unrestricted release of the site.
The final characterization survey submitted in 1996 was supplemented by a 2000 Historical Site
Assessment. A Derived Concentration Guideline Report (DCGL) report was submitted to NRC
in February 2001. The May 2001 NRC review determined that the dose estimate based upon a
DCGL of 340 pCi/g total uranium provided a reasonable assurance that Part 20 dose limits
would not be exceeded for the critical group. GSA indicated that a Sampling and Analysis Plan
and Final Status Survey will be submitted for NRC review in late 2001.
Involved Parties:
Mike Strobel, Contracting Officer
General Services Administration
J.W. McCormick Bldg., Room L1-A
Boston, MA 02109
Tel: 617-223-9622
MaryEllen Iorio, Project Manager
Army Corps of Engineers NED
696 Virginia Rd.
Concord, MA 01742
Tel: 978-318-8174
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
NRC will not seek licensing of the site from GSA if remediation can be completed within the
USACE’s proposed schedule. There are no immediate public health and safety risks from the
Page 57 of 60
radiological exposure or hazards associated with intrusion of groundwater contamination
because of the low concentrations levels and insolubility of the uranium identified.
A high water table causes occasional flooding of most property areas. Flooded areas and the
presence of significant amounts of building rubble at or near surfaces delayed previous
characterizations of contamination, but the recent historical site assessment sufficiently
quantified contamination levels throughout the site. The Derived Concentration Guideline
Report provides the nuclide concentrations and exposure scenarios to support release of the
site for unrestricted use. Some local public interest has been shown due to the location of the
site being adjacent to a residential community. The Watertown Restoration Advisory Board
provides a forum for public interest in the site.
There are no major off-site environmental or financial assurance issues to be addressed during
decommissioning of the site.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
•
•
The USACE maintains the decommissioning schedule and is able to complete the
Sampling and Analysis Plan and Final Status Surveys by the end CY2001.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE
12/02
Page 58 of 60
WHITTAKER CORPORATION
(Updated June 18, 2001)
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Location:
Greenville, PA
License No: SMA-1018
Docket No:
040-7455
License Status: Active
Project Manager: Steve Shaffer, RI
2.0 SITE STATUS SUMMARY
Thorium is the major contaminant at the Whittaker site. NRC staff conducted inspections of the
Greenville site, in 1997, that identified problems with site erosion control and migration of
contamination into groundwater. The licensee has expanded the security fence around the site
to encompass all licensed material. The licensee installed new groundwater monitoring wells in
March 2000. The wells were sampled initially and will be sampled annually there after.
Whittaker Corporation was acquired, in its entirety, by Meggitt plc. in July 1999. The company
name, operations, and financial obligations were not affected by the acquisition.
A meeting was held with the licensee on February 15, 2001, to discuss the NRC review of the
Whittaker contractor’s risk assessment of different methods of site release. The licensee will
notify the NRC of their decision regarding decommissioning methodology early this summer.
3.0 MAJOR TECHNICAL OR REGULATORY ISSUES
The licensee has not submitted a DP. The estimated volume of contaminated material is
14,160 m3 (500,000 ft3). Contaminated waste was apparently dumped off the edge of a steep
hill and has accumulated into soil and adjacent groundwater.
Whitaker is considering on-site entombment of material and will likely request restricted release
of the property in accordance with the LTR. There are no interested public groups or financial
concerns.
Involved Party:
Eric Lardiere, Vice President and General Counsel
Whittaker Corporation
1955 N. Surveyor Ave.
Simi Valley, CA 93063-3386
Tel: (805) 526-5700 x 6648
Page 59 of 60
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
C
C
C
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will enter into an Agreement with the NRC and
take responsibility for oversight of remediation activities.
The licensee continues with plans to move toward restricted release.
Standard assumptions
5.0 ESTIMATED DATE FOR CLOSURE
8/09
Page 60 of 60
CONTAMINATED FORMERLY LICENSED SITES
Name
Location
Date of
Lic. Term.
Status
1
U.S. Army Chemical Corp.
Fort McClellan, AL
1965
In process of decommissioning
2
Reynolds Metals
Bauxite, AR
1957
Transferred to Arkansas (AR completed remediation)
3
Aerojet General Co.
San Ramon, CA
1970
Transferred to California
4
Isotope Specialties
Burbank, CA
1959
Transferred to California
5
Isotope Specialties
Burbank, CA
1959
Transferred to California
6
Verdi Mill
Mohave, CA
1958
Transferred to California
7
United Nuclear
New Haven, CT
1974
In process of decommissioning
8
U.S. Naval Research Lab.
Washington, DC
1987
Closed via letter from Navy
9
Norton
Worchester, MA
1968
Closed- successfully remediated
10
AAR Manufacturing, Inc.
Livonia, MI
1970
In process of decommissioning
Page 1 of 4
Name
Location
Date of
Lic. Term.
Status
11
American Metal Products
Ann Arbor, MI
1964
Closed- successfully remediated
12
Frome Investment Co.
Detroit, MI
1970
Closed- successfully remediated
13
General Electric
Warren, MI
1970
Closed- successfully remediated
14
Tenneco Chemicals
Fords, NJ
1973
Closed- successfully remediated
15
Navy
St. Albans, NY
1973
Closed-new license issued to Veterans Affairs
16
Cleveland Pneumatic Tool
Co.
Cleveland, OH
1972
Closed- successfully remediated
17
Clevite
Cleveland, OH
1962
Closed-successfully Remediated
18
Horizons, Inc.
Cleveland, OH
1959
Transferred to Ohio
19
National Carbon Co.
(Union Carbide)
Fostoria, OH
1964
Closed- successfully remediated
20
Standard Oil Co. (BP
America)
Cleveland, OH
1973
Closed- successfully remediated
21
Thompson Products
Cleveland, OH
1963
Closed- successfully remediated
22
Union Carbide
Parma, OH
1972
Closed- successfully remediated
Page 2 of 4
Name
Location
Date of
Lic. Term.
Status
23
Kaiser Aluminum
Tulsa, OK
1971
In process of decommissioning
24
Atlantic Metals
Philadelphia, PA
1971
Closed - successfully remediated
25
Department of the Army
Frankford Arsenal,
Philadelphia, PA
1981
In process of decommissioning
26
International Chemical and
Nuclear
West Mifflin, PA
1969
Closed - successfully remediated
27
Nuclear Laundry Rental
Services
Jeanette, PA
1973
Closed - successfully remediated
28
Superior Steel
Pittsburgh, PA
1958
In process of decommissioning
29
Westinghouse Electric
Blairsville, PA
1961
In process of decommissioning
30
Union Carbide
Lawrenceburg,TN
1974
In process of decommissioning
31
American Smelting &
Refining
Houston, TX
1971
Transferred to Texas
32
Dow Chemical
Freeport, TX
1964
Transferred to Texas
33
LTV Corporation
Dallas, TX
1964
Transferred to Texas
Page 3 of 4
Name
Location
Date of
Lic. Term.
Status
34
Marquardt Corp.
Ogden, UT
1971
Transferred to Utah
35
Marquardt Corp.
Hill AFB, UT
1972
Transferred to U.S. Air Force Radioisotope Committee
36
Atlantic Research Corp.
Alexandria, VA
1979
Closed - Review of records indicates that the ARCO facility
was properly decommissioned in 1995
37
Fostoria Glass
Moundsville, WV
1969
Closed - dose assessment indicated facility below 25mrem/yr
38
Homer Laughlin
Newell, WV
1972
Under Regional review
39
International Mining Co.
Greenville, WY
1961
Under Regional review
In SECY-00-0094 the staff noted that Region 1 had identified 92 additional sites with minor amounts of contamination and therefore not
included on this list. Of these sites, 82 were remediated and closed, four were transferred to Agreement States for closure, and six were
pending closure. One of the six sites pending Regional closure, Department of the Army, Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, PA, was added to
above contaminated sites list because the Army is not able to remediate this site in a timely manner.
Page 4 of 4
ASSUMPTIONS USED TO DEVELOP SDMP AND
COMPLEX DECOMMISSIONING SITE GANTT CHARTS
Attachment 10
ASSUMPTIONS USED TO DEVELOP SDMP AND
COMPLEX DECOMMISSIONING SITE GANTT CHARTS
GENERIC ASSUMPTIONS:
!
Staff will meet with licensees before the submission of the Decommissioning Plan (DP), to
ensure that the licensee understands the type and quality of information needed in a DP.
!
No major policy decisions will be needed to complete the decommissioning.
!
Adequate staff resources will be available to accomplish tasks when scheduled, provided
the tasks do not all occur simultaneously.
!
NUREG-1727, “NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review Plan” (SRP) provides sufficient
guidance to evaluate any site-specific issues raised in the DP.
!
If necessary, staff will be adequately trained in the use of the SRP.
!
All requests for additional information (RAIs) will be developed using the Division of Waste
Management’s ”streamlined approach to licensing actions,” and only one RAI will be
generated per licensing action or licensee submission [DP, Final Status Survey Report
(FSSR), etc].
!
Technical Evaluation Reports will be developed to serve as the basis for all RAIs.
!
It will not be necessary for licensees to collect significant additional information to respond
to an RAI (i.e., large numbers of additional samples).
!
Licensees will be available to meet with the NRC staff in a timely fashion, to ensure that
the planned schedule is met.
!
Staff will use a multiplication factor of 2.0 to convert level of effort (i.e., actual task time) to
“calendar” time in developing Gantt charts (basis: experience and budget load factor).
!
DPs will be approved as a license amendment.
!
All sites requesting license termination with restrictions on future site use will require the
development of an environmental impact statement (EIS), and approval of the DP will
include a public hearing.
!
All sites requesting license termination without restrictions on future use will only require
the development of an environmental assessment/finding of no significant impact, and
approval of the DP will not include a public hearing.
!
All licensees have sufficient financial assurance to cover the cost of decommissioning.
Page 1 of 4
SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS:
A.
Sites Requesting License Termination under Unrestricted Use
Acceptance Reviews:
!
DP will be complete when submitted and meet acceptance criteria.
!
Licensing Assistant’s (LA’s) concurrence will be no more than 3 days.
!
Staff will use a standardized “acceptance” letter [see Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Decommissioning Handbook, Appendix G].
!
The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) will not need to concur on acceptance
review letters.
!
Section Leader/Branch Chief (SC/BC) concurrence will be no more than 5 days.
!
Staff will use acceptance review checklists (Appendix A to NUREG-1727) to perform
acceptance reviews.
!
Acceptance review will include a limited technical review and be completed within 90
days
Federal Register Notices (FRN’s):
!
Staff will always prepare an FRN when a DP is received.
!
Staff will use a standard FRN to announce its intent to amend the license to
incorporate the DP.
!
LA concurrence will be no more than 3 days.
!
SC/BC concurrence will be no more than 5 days.
!
OGC review not needed for the FRN.
!
There will be FRNs will be published within 7 days of being sent to the
Publications Branch.
Develop DP Review Plan:
!
SC review/approval only.
DP Evaluation:
!
No unresolvable or policy-challenging issues will be raised as a result of the review
of the DP.
Final Radiological Status Surveys:
!
In general, confirmatory surveys will not be conducted at the end of licensee
remediation activities. Instead, the Regions will perform in-process, side-by-side
confirmatory surveys and rely on the licensee’s quality assurance (QA) program.
!
No additional cleanup will be required and no significant additional information will
need to be collected to support the FSSR.
Removal of site from the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP):
!
The Commission will approve the staff’s recommendation to remove the site from
the SDMP.
!
States, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or others will not challenge the
staff’s decision to remove the site from the SDMP and terminate the license.
Page 2 of 4
B.
Sites Requesting License Termination under Restricted Use
Acceptance Reviews:
!
DP will be complete when submitted and will meet acceptance criteria.
!
LA concurrence will be no more than 3 days.
!
Staff will use a standardized “acceptance” letter (see NMSS Decommissioning
Handbook, Appendix G).
!
OGC will not need to concur on acceptance review letters.
!
SC/BC concurrence will be no more than 5 days.
!
Staff will use acceptance review checklists (Appendix A to NUREG-1727) to perform
acceptance reviews.
!
Acceptance review will include a limited technical review and be completed within 90
days
Federal Register Notices:
!
Staff will always prepare an FRN when a DP is received.
!
Staff will use a standard FRN to announce its intent to amend the license to
incorporate the DP.
!
LA concurrence will be no more than 3 days.
!
SC/BC concurrence will be no more than 5 days.
!
OGC review will not be needed for FRN.
!
FRNs will be published within 7 days of being sent to the Publications Branch.
Phased Review
!
!
!
!
!
Following the successful acceptance review, the detailed technical review will be
conducted in two phases
Phase 1 will consist only of a review of the institutional control and financial
assurance provisions of the DP.
Phase 1 can be completed successfully in 9 months with a single request for
additional information (RAI).
Phase 2 will address all other aspects of compliance with the License Termination
Rule.
The environmental impact statement will not be initiated until Phase 2.
10 CFR 20.1405 Letters:
!
Staff will use a standard 10 CFR 20.1405 letter to solicit input from interested
parties.
!
LA concurrence will be no more than 3 days.
!
SC/BC concurrence will be no more than 5 days.
!
OGC will not need to review 10 CFR 20.1405 letter(s).
Develop DP Review Plan:
!
SC review/approval only.
DP Evaluation (including EIS development):
!
One scoping meeting will be held to support the development of the EIS.
!
Environmental and Performance Assessment Branch (EPAB) will have the lead for
developing the EIS and will be supported by Decommissioning Branch (DCB) and a
contractor.
Page 3 of 4
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
EPAB team will prepare FRN - “Intent to Develop EIS.”
DCB staff will prepare the draft Safety Evaluation Report during the development of
the draft EIS (DEIS).
One RAI will be required in support of each of the DEIS and FEIS.
No unresolvable or policy-challenging issues will be raised as a result of the review
of the DEIS.
All comments on the DEIS will be submitted within the prescribed comment period.
The Commission will approve/concur on the staff’s Record of Decision.
The DP will be approved after the public hearing.
Final Radiological Status Surveys:
!
In general, neither the Regions nor ORISE will conduct confirmatory surveys at the
end of licensee remediation activities. Instead, the Regions will perform in-process,
side-by-side confirmatory surveys and rely on the licensee’s QA program.
!
No additional cleanup will be required and no significant additional information will
need to be collected to support the FSSR.
Removal of site from the SDMP:
!
The Commission will approve the staff’s recommendation to remove the site from
the SDMP.
!
States, EPA, or others will not challenge the staff’s decision to remove the site from
the SDMP and terminate the license.
Page 4 of 4
STATUS SUMMARIES
FOR
REACTORS UNDERGOING DECOMMISSIONING
Attachment 11
PLANT STATUS SUMMARIES
FOR
FERMI UNIT 1 AND PEACH BOTTOM UNIT 1
Attachment 12
FERMI - Unit 1
(Updated May 23, 2001)
1.0 Site Identification
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
Licensing Status:
Project Manager:
Monroe, Michigan
50-16
DPR-9
Active/Decommissioning
Stewart Brown
2.0 Site Status Summary
Licensee's initial stage of decommissioning complete, bulk sodium has been removed from the
site. Facility is in a SAFSTOR condition. Spent fuel was removed from the site. The licensee
is currently performing occupational safety enhancement activities, concentrating in nonradioactive areas, such as asbestos removal. A contractor was selected in January 1999 to
conduct trace sodium cleanup starting in about October/November 1999. The facility is
expected to be dismantled under the provisions of 50.59. PSDAR public meeting held on April
22, 1998. Current decommissioning cost estimate is $28-31 million (1998 dollars). Current
amount in trust fund is $32 million. The licensee will begin to dismantle the facility in mid to late
2001. The staff plans to meet with the licensee in mid 2001 to discuss issues related to the
development of a license termination plan (LTP). The licensee plans to submit its LTP in either
2002 or 2003.
Involved Parties:
Lynn Goodman
Detroit Edison Company
3.0 Major Technical or Regulatory Issues
None
4.0 Assumptions
•
Standard
5.0 Estimated Date for Closure
3/05
Page 1 of 2
PEACH BOTTOM - Unit 1
(Updated May 23, 2001)
1.0 Site Identification
Location:
License No.:
Docket No.:
Licensing Status:
Project Manager:
Delta, Pennsylvania
50-171
DPR-12
Active/Decommissioning
Stewart Brown
2.0 Site Status Summary
Facility in a SAFSTOR condition. Spent fuel removed from the site. PSDAR meeting was held
on June 29, 1998. Final decommissioning not expected until 2015 when Units 2 and 3 are
scheduled to shut down. Current decommissioning cost estimate is $48.9 million (1998
dollars). Utility has been collecting $723,360/yr, but will increase the amount to $1,343,808/yr
through 2015 to accumulate sufficient funding. The current trust fund amount is $11.3 million
as of December 31, 1998.
Involved Parties:
Steve Beck
EXELON
3.0 Major Technical or Regulatory Issues
None
4.0 Assumptions
•
The licensee will maintain its facility in SAFSTOR until 2010 and submits its license
termination plan (LTP) in 2012.
5.0 Estimated Date for Closure
12/15
Page 2 of 2
BIG ROCK POINT
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
OL Expiration Date:
Shutdown Date:
Consumers Energy Company
67 Mw(e) BWR
Dry, Spherical
GE
Permanently shutdown
5/31/1960
5/1/1964
N/A
8/30/97
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The plant shut down on August 30, 1997. Fuel was transferred to the spent fuel pool by
September 20, 1997. The licensee submitted certification of permanent cessation of operations
on June 26, 1997, and certification of permanent fuel removal on September 23, 1997. The
licensee submitted their decommissioning plan (DP) on February 27, 1995. The DP was
considered to be the PSDAR and has subsequently been updated. The PSDAR public meeting
was held on November 13, 1997. The licensee selected the DECON option. Under the current
schedule, the Part 50 license would be terminated in 2007. The current decommissioning cost
estimate is approximately $314 million (2000 dollars).
CURRENT ISSUES
The licensee is planning to use a generally-licensed onsite dry cask transportable system
compatible with Big Rock and Palisades fuel. The licensee expects to transfer fuel to ISFSI by
October 2001. The estimated date of transfer from NRR project management to NMSS project
management is 2002. Current licensing action requests are associated with upgrading the
containment building crane, lifting/transporting the reactor vessel, and a 10 CFR 20.2002
request to bury demolition debris in a State of Michigan Landfill.
June 2001
Page 1 of 16
DRESDEN - Unit 1
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
OL Expiration Date:
Shutdown Date:
Exelon Generation Company
BWR
Spherical
GE
Permanently shutdown
5/4/1956
9/28/1959
N/A
10/78
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The plant shut down in October 1978, and is currently in SAFSTOR. The decommissioning
plan was approved in September 1993. No significant dismantlement activities are underway.
Asbestos removal, isolation of Unit 1 from Units 2 and 3, and general radiation cleanup
activities are complete or in progress. The licensee will dismantle Unit 1 at the same time as
the other two units onsite, which is expected no earlier than 2011. The licensee submitted an
updated PSDAR on June 1, 1998. The PSDAR public meeting was held on July 23, 1998. The
current decommissioning cost estimate is $362 million (1996 dollars). The current amount in
the decommissioning trust fund is $92.9 million. The licensee expects to collect the remainder
by 2011. The expected date of transfer from NRR project management to NMSS project
management has not been determined.
CURRENT ISSUES
The licensee will use the Holtec HISTAR 100 dual purpose cask and the HISTORM concrete
overpack to store spent fuel. The HISTAR 100 draft Certificate of Compliance (CoC) SER was
issued in September 1998. The HISTORM final rule was issued in May 2000. The licensee
installed a new cask-handling crane, then loaded the first cask and transferred it to the ISFSI in
August 2000. Subsequently, casks have been loaded with Unit 1 spent fuel from the Unit 2
spent fuel pool, along with Unit 2 spent fuel, to address the Unit 2 spent fuel storage issue.
July 2001
Page 2 of 16
HADDAM NECK - CONNECTICUT YANKEE
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
Provisional OL:
Full Term OL:
OL Expiration date:
Shutdown Date:
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company
PWR
Westinghouse
Permanently shutdown
6/30/67
12/27/74
N/A
7/22/96
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
Steam generators, RCPs and the pressurizer have been removed from containment and
reactor internals segmentation is complete. Preparations are underway for reactor vessel
removal from containment in late 2001 or early 2002. Plans are being finalized for turbine
building dismantlement. There are 1016 spent fuel assemblies and 18 canisters of GTCC
waste stored in the spent fuel pool. The date for transferring project management
responsibilities from NRR to NMSS has not been determined, however, the licensee plans to
begin operation of an ISFSI in 2003.
CURRENT ISSUES
Early this year, the staff issued RAIs related to the License Termination Plan (LTP) submitted in
July 2000. The licensee submitted an initial response to the RAIs in June 2001. The LTP is
being challenged by the Connecticut Dept. of Public Utility Controls and by the Citizens
Awareness Network. Pre-hearing conferences were held in April and May 2001. The ASLBP
ruled on the admissibility of contentions in early July 2001, however, hearings are not imminent
because discovery against the staff will not commence until the LTP safety evaluation is issued.
In April 2001, the licensee was fined by the State of South Carolina for exceeding the limit for
liquid content in a radioactive waste transport cask shipped to the Barnwell, SC disposal facility.
An NRC inspection found contributing deficiencies in work process controls.
The licensee has been unsuccessful in obtaining approval from the town government for
construction of the planned ISFSI. The licensee brought the issue to federal court, but the case
was dismissed. Attempts at an out-of-court settlement have been fruitless. The Town of
Haddam sent a letter to the Chairman in June 2001, asking for the NRC position on several
issues related to CY’s spent fuel storage plans. The staff is preparing a response to the letter.
SFPO is reviewing a NAC application to use its dry storage cask at Haddam Neck.
The licensee recently announced its plans with AES Corporation to use part of the site for a
natural gas-fired electric plant. CY plans to submit a request to the NRC to release its parking
lot area for unrestricted use to build the plant.
June 2001
Page 3 of 16
HUMBOLDT BAY
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
Date of CP:
Date of OL:
OL Expiration:
Shutdown Date:
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
65 MW(e) BWR
Pressure suppression
GE/Bechtel
Permanently shutdown
11/9/60
08/28/62
N/A
07/76
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The plant was shutdown in July 1976. The plant is in SAFSTOR. The decommissioning plan
was approved in July 1988. The licensee is evaluating the feasibility of early dismantlement with
license termination in 2005. The 250-ft ventilation stack, which was in close proximity to the
spent fuel pool, has been dismantled and replaced with a 50-ft vent stack that is less vulnerable
to seismic induced damage. In September 1997, the licensee successfully repaired
groundwater leaks into the reactor building caisson. The grout injection effort reduced
inleakage from about 7000 gal/day to less than 15 gal/day. An updated PSDAR was submitted
on February 27, 1998. The current decommissioning cost estimate is $218 million (license
termination in 2015 ) or $201 million (license termination in 2005). There is currently $202.5
million in the decommissioning trust fund. The expected date of transfer from NRR project
management to NMSS project management is 2005 assuming an early license termination. A
Technical Specification conversion is presently in review with the staff.
CURRENT ISSUES
The licensee is planning to submit an ISFSI application in the fall of 2001, and anticipates the
review and approval process will take 2 years. If the application is approved, a decision will
then be made on whether to proceed with ISFSI construction. ISFSI construction and fuel
movement is projected to be completed by mid -2005. Along with this PGE is involved in a
study at this time to determine if total site decommissioning for Unit 3 should be undertaken
sooner.
The next phase of work for PGE will involve asbestos removal, systems and structures
radiological characterization, reactor and internals activation analysis, LLW management plan
development, developing of a work, cost and scheduling process and the developing of a
facilities and staffing plan. This phase would continue from now until 2004 assuming early
decommissioning.
July 2001
Page 4 of 16
INDIAN POINT - Unit 1
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
OL Expiration Date:
Shutdown Date:
Consolidated Edison
257 Mw(e) PWR
Dry Volumetric Pre-Stressed
B&W
Permanently shutdown
5/56
3/26/1962
N/A
10/74
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The plant was shutdown in October 1974. The order approving SAFSTOR was issued in
January 1996. The license was extended to 2006. Currently there is no significant
dismantlement underway. The licensee plans to decommission Unit 1 with Unit 2, which is
currently in operation. The PSDAR public meeting was held on January 20, 1999. The current
decommissioning cost estimate is for both Units 1 and 2. The licensee estimated site-specific
decommissioning cost in 1998 dollars of $771.3 million. About 40% of this amount represents
spent fuel storage costs. The estimated date of transfer from NRR project management to
NMSS project management has not been determined yet.
CURRENT ISSUES
The licensee recently informed the NRC of its intentions to seek regulatory approval for onsite
dry cask storage of the fuel in the SFP. Current merger between CEI and NU will have no
effect on IP1 or IP2. The onsite and off-site resources supporting IP1 will not be refocused or
altered in any way as a result of the merger. The recent accident at IP2 did not affect the
SAFSTOR of IP1. Workers were doing routine maintenance in the IP1 spent fuel pools when
the accident occurred.
April 2001
Page 5 of 16
LACROSSE
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
OL Expiration Date:
Shutdown Date:
Dairyland Power Corporation
50 Mw(e) BWR
Light cylinder with hemispherical dome and semi-ellipsoidal bottom
Allis-Chalmers
Permanently shutdown
3/29/1963
7/3/1967
N/A
04/30/87
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The plant was shut down on April 30, 1987. The SAFSTOR decommissioning plan (DP) was
approved August 7, 1991. The DP is considered the PSDAR. The PSDAR public meeting was
held on May 13,1998. Limited and gradual dismantlement is currently underway. The current
decommissioning cost estimate is $98.7 million for dismantlement. The current amount in the
decommissioning trust fund is $66.9 million. The licensee expects to collect an additional $2.2
million per year through the year 2010. The estimated date of transfer from NRR project
management to NMSS project management can not be determined because of spent fuel
disposition schedule uncertainties.
CURRENT ISSUES
The licensee is coordinating with the Goshute Indian tribe in Utah for MRS storage of spent
fuel. The licensee has no plans for an onsite ISFSI.
April 2001
Page 6 of 16
MAINE YANKEE
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
OL Issuance Date:
Shutdown Date:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPC)
PWR
Steel lined, reinforced concrete
CE
Permanently shutdown 860 MWe
6/29/1973
12/06/96
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The plant was shutdown on December 6, 1996. Certification of permanent cessation of operations was
submitted on August 7, 1997. The PSDAR was submitted on August 27, 1997. The LTP was submitted
on January 13, 2000. Based in part on hearing requests by the State of Maine and Friends of the Coast
Opposing Nuclear Pollution, the licensee committed to develop a revised LTP and submitted the revised
LTP on June 1, 2001. The licensee selected DECON as decommissioning option. A $250 million
decommissioning and decontamination contract was awarded to Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation (SWEC) on August 4, 1998. The plant was de-powered on December 30,1998 to a “cold,
dark plant” status for turnover to SWEC. On May 4, 2000, MYAPC terminated its contract with SWEC
due to SWEC’s financial difficulties and impending bankruptcy. The three steam generators and the
pressurizer were shipped to GTS Duratek in Memphis, Tennessee, in June and July 2000, for
processing and disposal. The current decommissioning cost estimate is $547 million of which $357
million applies to decommissioning, $154 million applies to spent fuel management, and $36 million
applies to site restoration. The expected date of transfer from NRR to NMSS project management is late
2002, upon completion of fuel transfer to the ISFSI.
CURRENT ISSUES
On September 13, 2000, MYAPC announced that it was revising its plan for disposing of concrete from
demolished buildings at the Maine Yankee site. MYAPC decided to dispose of above-grade concrete
from demolished buildings by shipping the concrete to off-site disposal facilities rather than place it in the
building foundations as it had initially proposed. The portion of the above-grade concrete that is
radiologically contaminated will be shipped by rail to the Envirocare facility in Utah.
Beginning in July 2000, MYAPC began acting as its own general contractor, after terminating the
decommissioning contract due to SWEC’s impending bankruptcy. On January 26, 2001, MYAPC
announced that it would manage the decommissioning as general contractor through completion.
The State of Maine and the Friends of the Coast Opposing Nuclear Pollution filed separate petitions to
intervene in response to the license amendment associated with the Maine Yankee LTP. On July 20,
2000, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board held a telephone conference with the participants and
determined that the proceeding should be held in abeyance until MYAPC files a revised LTP. MYAPC
filed the revised LTP on June 1, 2001.
The licensee intends to use the NAC International Universal Multi-Purpose Canister System (UMS) dry
cask spent fuel storage system. Spent fuel transfer from the spent fuel pool to the onsite ISFSI is
scheduled from September 2001 to November 2002.
July 2001
Page 7 of 16
MILLSTONE - Unit 1
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
Shutdown Date:
Northeast Nuclear Energy (NNECO)
652 MW(e) BWR
GE
Permanently shutdown
5/19/66
10/07/70 (Provisional Operating License)
10/31/86 (Full Term Operating License)
11/04/95
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
Unit 1 was shutdown on November 4, 1995. Unit 1 was defueled on November 19, 1995.
Certifications per 10CFR 50.82(a) were submitted July 21, 1998. The licensee’s current plan is
to leave the plant in SAFSTOR until the Unit 2 operating license expires. The licensee
submitted their PSDAR on June 14, 1999. The licensee has chosen a combination of the
DECON and SAFSTOR options. NRR conducted two public meetings in Waterford, CT, on
February 9, and August 25, 1999. The PSDAR estimated the total decommissioning cost,
including and ISFSI, to be $692 million. A more recent analysis estimates the cost to be $701
million in mid-year 1999 dollars (including fuel management/storage and site restoration). The
decommissioning trust fund amount is $304 million as of 12/99, with an additional $36 million
being collected each year.
CURRENT ISSUES
On March 9, 2001, the NRC issued an Order approving the transfer of the Operating License
for Millstone, Units 1, 2 and 3 from Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) to Dominion
Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut is an indirect, wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dominion Energy, which is in turn owned by Dominion Resources, Inc. The
closing of the sale and transfer was completed on March 31, 2001.
As part of preparation for the sale, NNECO conducted a spent fuel inventory reconciliation and
determined in December 2000 that the location of two spent fuel rods was unknown. In 1972 a
once burned fuel assembly was disassembled to allow testings by GE. Two of the fuel rods
were not put back in the assembly but were put in a special fuel rod box. Records dated 1979
and 1980 show the rods stored in the Northwest corner of the spent fuel pool. Records after
1980 do not show the fuel rods in the fuel pool. No record for transport of the fuel rods offsite
has been found. Inspections of the spent fuel pool, an extensive records search, and personnel
interviews are continuing.
The licensee is evaluating the feasibility of constructing and operating an ISFSI. The PSDAR
projects the fuel transfer to an ISFSI, if they build one, being completed by the end of 2005.
June 2001
Page 8 of 16
RANCHO SECO
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
OL Expiration Date:
Shutdown Date:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
2772 MW(t) PWR
Large Dry
B&W
Permanently shutdown
8/16/1974
N/A
06/89
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The plant was shutdown in June 1989. The SAFSTOR decommissioning plan was approved in
March 1995. The licensee revised its decommissioning plan in 1997 to use an incremental
dismantlement approach. In November 1999, the licensee informed the NRC of its decision to
begin full dismantlement of the facility. The licensee has completed dismantlement of the
secondary side equipment in the turbine building. Wastes generated during decommissioning
are being shipped to Envirocare. The current schedule is to complete the license termination
survey by 2008. The licensee is now dismantling equipment in the auxiliary building. The
current decommissioning cost estimate is $433 million (1999 dollars). The licensee has spent
$118 million. The current amount in the decommissioning trust fund is approximately $128
million and is considered adequate to complete decommissioning. The licensee will be
collecting money through the license expiration date of 2008. The expected date of transfer
from NRR project management to NMSS project management is 2002.
CURRENT ISSUES
On October 4, 1991, the licensee submitted a site-specific Part 72 ISFSI application using the
VECTRA NUHOMS-MP187 dual purpose cask design. The ISFSI pad is completed and
horizontal storage modules delivered. The transportation and storage aspects of the dual
purpose cask have been approved. A local public meeting to discuss the licensee’s current
dismantlement plans was held on June 20, 2000. In July 2000, the licensee received its spent
fuel shipping cask. On March 12-15 and April 2-3, 2001, the NRC conducted a team inspection
at Rancho Seco to evaluate the pre-operational test activities for the ISFSI. On April 3-13 and
19, 2001, the NRC conducted an inspection of the loading of the first canister into the ISFSI. In
general all activities were performed satisfactorily. Further cask loading is awaiting delivery of
more casks.
June 2001
Page 9 of 16
SAN ONOFRE - Unit 1
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
OL Expiration Date:
Shutdown Date:
Southern California Edison
436 Mw(e) PWR
Spherical
Westinghouse
Permanently shutdown
3/2/1964
3/27/1967
N/A
11/92
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The plant was shut down in November 1992. The licensee submitted an updated PSDAR on
December 15, 1998. The PSDAR public meeting was held on February 25, 1999. The facility
transitioned from SAFSTOR in 1999 and is now in active decommissioning (DECON).
Significant dismantlement is currently underway. The licensee has completed demolition of the
emergency diesel generator building as part of their effort to make room for an onsite ISFSI.
ISFSI construction is expected to begin in 2002. The control and administration building
demolition is nearly complete. Dismantlement and removal of the electrical generator and main
turbine is also nearly complete. Most major RCS piping cuts for major component removal
have been completed. The control room has been relocated and Unit 1 has established its SFP
island concept with the rest of the Unit 1 facility cold and dark. Major security modifications to
isolate Units 2 and 3 from the Unit 1 are complete. The license is also in the early stages of RV
internal segmentation and cutup. The contractor, PCI, has been conducting prototype testing
and has begun work onsite. In addition, asbestos removal and abatement is ongoing. Over
70,000 lbs of waste have been shipped to date. The latest decommissioning cost estimate is
$459 million (1998 dollars) which includes ISFSI costs. The full amount necessary to complete
the plant decommissioning is in the decommissioning trust fund. The expected date of transfer
from NRR project management to NMSS project management is expected to take place in mid2005.
CURRENT ISSUES
Recent licensee schedules indicated ISFSI construction and cask procurement to support fuel
movement beginning in 2003. The projected review and approval time for the cask certification
is very tight. Vendor application for a certificate of compliance for the cask design to be used
by SONGS was submitted to the NRC for approval on September 29, 2000. Seismic capability
is expected to be the dominate area of review in licensing of the cask. The cask vendor is TN
West.
July 2001
Page 10 of 16
SAXTON
Licensees:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
OL Expiration Date:
Shutdown Date:
GPU Nuclear and Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corp.
28 Mw(th) PWR
Steel vessel
Permanently shutdown
2/11/1960
11/15/1961
N/A
05/72
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The plant was shutdown in May 1972, and in February 1975, was placed in SAFSTOR until
1986, when phased dismantlement began with removal of support buildings, contaminated soil,
and some material in the containment. The licensees submitted a decommissioning plan in
1996, which became the PSDAR. The licensee submitted a License Termination Plan (LTP) in
February 1999, which was returned without review to the licensees because it contained
insufficient information to perform a detailed review. The LTP was resubmitted in February
2000, and has passed an acceptance review. The NRC staff approved an amendment request
in 1998 to allow dismantlement under 50.59. The licensee has started dismantlement activities.
The reactor vessel with internals, steam generator, and pressurizer have been shipped to
Barnwell for disposal. The current decommissioning cost estimate is $52 million in 2000
dollars. The remaining decommissioning activities are estimated to cost $14 million. The
Saxton owners have provided parent company guarantees of $20 million. The licensees’
funding status for decommissioning will be reviewed with the LTP. In March 2001, NRC
approved the merger of GPU, Inc. and First Energy Corp. All spent fuel has been removed
from site. There is no current plan to transfer project management from NRR to NMSS.
CURRENT ISSUES
The licensee has delayed the estimated completion date of decommissioning activities from late
2001 until mid 2002. The delay is caused by two reasons. First, it was discovered that
contamination had spread behind the concrete shielding than lines parts of the containment
vessel. The licensee has decided to remove all of the concrete from the containment to ensure
that contamination is addressed. Because of the high water table at the site, the area around
the containment will be dewatered to prevent the containment from becoming buoyant as
weight is removed. Second, the licensee continues characterization of areas associated with
the old Saxton Steam Generating Station, a coal fired power plant located next to the Saxton
nuclear facility which was demolished in the 1970s. During operation, the nuclear facility sent
steam to the generating station’s turbine. Liquid radioactive waste was discharged to the
environment through the generating station’s discharge tunnel. The licensee has found
contamination in the discharge tunnel and in sumps in the basement of the generating station
(which was filled in with debris during demolishing). The NRC staff continues to evaluate the
LTP.
June 2001
Page 11 of 16
THREE MILE ISLAND - Unit 2
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
OL Expiration Date:
Shutdown Date:
GPU Nuclear
792 Mw(e) PWR
Dry Volumetric Pre-stressed
B&W
Permanently shutdown
11/4/1969
2/8/1978
N/A
03/79
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The operation accident occurred in March 1979. The plant defueling was completed in April
1990. Post Defueling Monitored Storage was approved in 1993. There is no significant
dismantlement underway. The plant shares equipment with the other operating unit. TMI-1
was sold to Amergen in 1999. GPU Nuclear will retain the license for TMI-2 and contract to
Amergen for maintenance and surveillance activities. Both units are expected to be
decommissioned in 2014. The current radiological decommissioning cost estimate is $469
million. The current amount in the decommissioning trust fund is $366 million accumulated per
10 CFR 50.75 (b)(c). The spent fuel was removed except for approximately 900 kg of fuel
debris in the NSSS. The fuel debris removed is currently in storage at INEL. DOE has taken
title and possession of the fuel debris. The date of transfer from NRR project management to
NMSS project management has not been determined.
CURRENT ISSUES
The recent sale of TMI-1 will not interfere with GPU’s mothballed TMI-2. GPU is currently
considering the formation of a new “Saxton-TMI-2 Oversight Committee.” Four license
amendments are under review as of this update. One amendment is revision 4 to the PDMS.
April 2001
Page 12 of 16
TROJAN
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
OL Expiration Date:
Shutdown Date:
Portland General Electric
1095 Mw(e) PWR
Dry Volumetric Pre-stressed
Westinghouse
Permanently shutdown
2/8/1971
11/21/1975
N/A
11/9/92
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The plant was shutdown in November 1992. The DECON decommissioning plan was approved
in April 1996. The plant is currently undergoing dismantlement under 10 CFR 50.59. The
steam generators and reactor vessel have been shipped to Hanford LLW site. The
decommissioning cost was estimated to be approximately $240 million (1997 dollars). The
licensee was granted a site-specific Part 72 license for an onsite ISFSI in March 1999. The
licensee submitted a License Termination Plan (LTP) in August of 1999. A public meeting on
the LTP was held in St. Helens, Oregon on December 7, 1999. License Amendment 206 was
issued in February 2001, approving the LTP.
CURRENT ISSUES
The licensee has switched spent fuel cask vendors and revised their schedule for Trojan
decommissioning based on problems with the transport licensing and a coatings issue
associated with spent fuel casks. The current estimate is that the additional time for licensing
of the casks will not permit loading the spent fuel in the casks for about two years. With cask
licensing projected for late 2002, completion of the transfer of the spent nuclear fuel from the
spent fuel pool to the ISFSI is not expected until 2003. Following decommissioning of the spent
fuel pool, Part 50 license termination is projected for 2005.
June 2001
Page 13 of 16
VALLECITOS
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
OL Expiration Date:
General Electric
50 MW(t) BWR
Steel, cylindrical 48' dia, 100' height, hemispherical ends
GE
Permanently shutdown
5/14/1956
5/14/1956
N/A
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The plant is currently in SAFSTOR. The facility has a PSDAR. The decommissioning cost was
estimated to be $9.849 million. GE has a self-guarantee instrument. The spent fuel has been
removed from the site. There are no plans to transfer NRR project management to NMSS
project management.
CURRENT ISSUES
There are no current issues.
April 2001
Page 14 of 16
YANKEE ROWE
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
OL Expiration Date:
Shutdown Date:
Yankee Atomic
167 Mw(e) PWR
Steel Sphere - Uninsulated
Westinghouse
Permanently shutdown
12/24/1963
July 9, 2000
10/01/91
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
The plant was permanently shutdown on October 1, 1991. The DECON decommissioning plan
was approved in February 1995 and the plant is undergoing dismantlement under 10 CFR
50.59. The steam generators were shipped to Barnwell. The reactor vessel was shipped on
April 27, 1997, to Barnwell by truck and rail, in one piece with no internals, and arrived on May
8, 1997. The licensee has removed all of the primary system, secondary side components and
switch yard from the site. As of fall 1999, the plant is about 80% dismantled. The containment
and other major structures remain. The spent fuel pool building is the only remaining "vital"
area and has the appropriate safety related programs, such as safeguards, in place. The spent
fuel pool has been segregated from the remaining decontamination and dismantlement
activities by providing it with independent and redundant electrical and cooling systems, and
multiple sources of cooling water.
A License Termination Plan was submitted on May 15, 1997. Local citizens' groups had filed
petitions for leave to intervene on the License Termination Plan. However, the licensee on May
26, 1999, filed a motion to the Commission and ASLB to withdraw the license termination plan
amendment request and for termination of the hearing. Under current regulations, the licensee
need not submit a new termination plan until 2052.
CURRENT ISSUES
The licensee has determined that a decommissioning operation contract is not economically
feasible, and will continue to manage the project. The licensee has completed construction of
an on-site ISFSI under a general license. The fuel handling crane capacity has been increased
and the crane made single-failure proof so that combined use storage/shipping casks could be
safely handled. The licensee has applied, through a cask contractor, for a Part 71 license for a
combined use cask. Dry runs of cask loading and transport are scheduled for later this
summer.
June 2001
Page 15 of 16
ZION - Units 1 & 2
Licensee:
Reactor Type:
Containment Type:
Vendor:
Power Level:
CP Issuance Date:
OL Issuance Date:
OL Expiration Date:
Shutdown Date:
Exelon Generation Company, LLC
3250 MW(t), 3250 MW(t) PWRs
Large dry
Westinghouse
Permanently shutdown
10/19/1973, 11/14/1973
N/A
02/13/98
CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS
Zion Nuclear Power Station (ZNPS) Units 1 and 2 was permanently shut down on February 13,
1998. The fuel was transferred to the spent fuel pool (SFP), and the licensee submitted the
certification of fuel transfer on March 9, 1998. There was a public meeting on June 1, 1998, to
inform the public of the shutdown plans. The licensee has converted the turbine-generators into
synchronous condensers, and they have isolated the SFP within a fuel building “nuclear island,”
and placed the plant in SAFSTOR, where it will remain until fuel transfer to DOE in about 2013.
Decommissioning costs have been estimated at about $560.4 million. The licensee will
continue to collect a per kw-hr fee for decommissioning ZNPS at an annual rate of
approximately $9.1 million until 2013. The NRR project management is expected to be
transferred to NMSS project management in 2013.
The defueled safety analysis report was submitted in 1998 and, in accordance with 10 CFR
50.75(f)(1), the licensee submitted a report on the status of decommissioning funding on March
31, 1999. The staff approved the defueled emergency plan and issued an exemption from
certain emergency preparedness regulations on August 31, 1999. Additionally, the staff issued
an exemption from certain portions of 10 CFR Part 73 consistent with the Zion permanently
defueled status on October 18, 1999, and an exemption from the insurance coverage and
financial protection requirement limits of 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11(a)(4) on
December 21, 1999. The permanently defueled Technical Specifications (PDTS) were issued
on December 30, 1999, with implementation by January 17, 2000. The licensee submitted the
PSDAR, site specific cost estimate, and fuel management plan on February 14, 2000. A public
meeting to discuss the PSDAR was held on April 26, 2000.
CURRENT ISSUES
On January 12, 2001, Exelon Generation Company, LLC became the holder of the Zion facility
operating licenses formerly held by Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) due to the
restructuring following the merger between Unicom Corporation and PECO Energy Company.
July 2001
Page 16 of 16
SCHEDULE FOR REACTOR
DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES
Attachment 14
Schedule For Reactor Decommissioning Activities
Power Plant
PSDAR**
Submitted
LTP
Submitted
LTP
Approved
Transfer to
NMSS
1
Big Rock Point
2/95
TBD
TBD
2002*
2
Haddam Neck - CY
8/97
7/00
9/02*
TBD
3
Dresden - Unit 1
6/98
TBD
TBD
TBD
4
Humboldt Bay
2/98
TBD
TBD
2005*
5
Indian Point - Unit 1
1/96
TBD
TBD
TBD
6
Lacrosse
5/91
TBD
TBD
TBD
7
Maine Yankee
9/97
1/00
1/03*
2002*
8
Millstone - Unit 1
6/99
TBD
TBD
TBD
9
Rancho Seco
12/94
TBD
TBD
2002*
10
San Onofre - Unit 1
12/98
TBD
TBD
TBD
11
Saxton
1996
2/00
4/02*
No Plans
12
Three Mile Island - Unit 2
2/79
TBD
TBD
TBD
13
Trojan
1/96
8/99
2/01
2003*
14
Vallecitos
7/66
TBD
TBD
No Plans
15
Yankee Rowe
11/94
6/02*
4/03*
TBD
16
Zion - Units 1 & 2
2/00
TBD
TBD
2013*
* estimated date
** PSDAR or Decommissioning Plan (DP) equivalent
NOTE: Licensees submitted DPs (or equivalent) prior to 1996, and PSDARs from 1996 on.
Page 1 of 1
MAJOR DECOMMISSIONING GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Attachment 15
Major Decommissioning Guidance Documents
Guidance Document
Status
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Regulatory Guide (1.184),
“Decommissioning of Nuclear Power
Reactors”
Issued July 2000
NRC Regulatory Guide (1.185), “Standard
Format and Content for Post-Shutdown
Decommissioning Activities Report”
Issued July 2000
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.179, “Standard
Format and Content of License Termination
Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors”
Issued January 1999
NRC Regulatory Guide (1.191), “Fire
Protection Program for Nuclear Power Plants
During Decommissioning and Permanent
Shutdown”
Issued May 2001
NRC Regulatory Guide (DG-4006),
“Demonstrating Compliance with the
Radiological Criteria for License Termination”
Draft guide issued in August 1998; DG-4006
superceded by NUREG-1727
NRC Regulatory Guide, DG-1085, “Standard
Format and Content for Decommissioning
Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors"
Draft scheduled for issuance in September
2001
Standard Review Plan for Evaluating Nuclear
Power Reactor License Termination Plans
Issued as NUREG-1700 in April 2000
NRC Standard Review Plan, NUREG-1713,
Standard Review Plan for Decommissioning
Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors"
Draft scheduled for issuance in September
2001
NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review
Plan
Issued as NUREG-1727, September 2000
NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-09,
“Standard Review Plan for Licensee
Requests to Extend the Time Periods
Established for Initiation of Decommissioning
Activities”
Issued June 2000
Division of Waste Management (DWM),
“Guidance Document for Streamlining the
Decommissioning Program for Fuel Cycle
and Material Licensees”
Issued January 1999
Page 1 of 2
Environmental Standard Review Plan for the
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards
Draft scheduled for issuance in September
2001
NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, “Generic
Environmental Impact Statement on
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities”
Update scheduled for issuance in Fall 2001
NUREG-1307, “Report on Waste Burial
Charges, Changes in Decommissioning
Waste Disposal Costs at Low-level Waste
Burial Facilities,” Rev. 9
Published August 2000
NUREG-1575, “Multi-Agency Radiation
Survey and Site Investigation Manual”
Published December 1997; Rev. 1 published
August 2000
NUREG-1505, “Nonparametric Statistical
Methodology for the Design and Analysis of
Final Status Decommissioning Surveys”
Published June 1998
NUREG-1507, “Minimum Detectable
Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey
Instruments for Various Contaminants and
Field Conditions”
Published June 1998
Draft NUREG-1549, “Decision Methods for
Dose Assessment to Comply with
Radiological Criteria for License Termination”
Published July 1998
Final User’s Guide on Probabilistic Version of
D and D Software, Version 2
Published March 2001
NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-19,
Partial Release of Reactor Site for
Unrestricted Use Before NRC Approval of
the License Termination Plan
Published October 2000
Page 2 of 2